Opinion ID: 1581660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions for Arriving at the Condemned Land's Value

Text: When giving instructions to the jury, the court must correctly state the law and confine it to [the facts]. A misstatement of the law in an instruction to a jury is reversible error. Heldenbrand v. Executive Council, 218 N.W.2d 628, 637 (Iowa 1974). [T]he jury should not be informed of any matter which is not proper for it to consider in arriving at its verdict. 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 628, at 175. The DOT takes issue with three jury instructions.
The relevant language of this instruction with the disputed portion emphasized reads: It is undisputed that on August 5, 1997 the Iowa Department of Transportation condemned and on October 7, 1997 took possession of the complete property owned by Jerry Kurth d/b/a Fisherman's Wharf Restaurant. Because the jury should not have heard evidence that equated the value of the business as property, the DOT argues that complete property is too broad. Literally, the complete property was taken, i.e., the land and the building which was a restaurant. The State condemned the entire fee. Nonetheless, we recognize that such a phrase may fail to distinguish that the government is not also taking the business. To minimize confusion in the future as to what the government is taking, the term complete property should not be used.
The relevant language of this instruction with the disputed portion emphasized reads: Factors you may consider in determining the fair and reasonable market value of the property are: ... 10. All competent facts which an owner would properly and naturally press upon the attention of a buyer with whom he is negotiating a sale of the property. 11. All competent facts which would naturally influence a person of ordinary prudence desiring to purchase the property. This instruction is almost verbatim from Van Horn v. Iowa Public Service Co., 182 N.W.2d 365, 371 (Iowa 1970) and earlier from Korf v. Fleming, 239 Iowa 501, 517-18, 32 N.W.2d 85, 94-95 (1948). As such, it is an accurate statement of the law. The dispute with Instruction 13 comes from the fact that the jury heard inadmissible evidence that it may have been able to incorporate in this instruction. Inadmissible evidence and a later instruction may have had an impermissible effect on this instruction.
The relevant language of this instruction with the disputed portion emphasized reads: There is evidence in this case as to certain net income derived from Plaintiff's operation of the Fisherman's Wharf Restaurant in the past. You are instructed that you are not to use such evidence as the measure of Plaintiff's damages, but you may consider such evidence only to the extent that you find that it does provide support, if any, for the estimates given herein as the fair market value of the property on August 5, 1997. This is an accurate statement of the law in leasehold condemnation proceedings in Iowa. See Twin-State Eng'g, 197 N.W.2d at 578-82. However, what was condemned here was a fee, not a leasehold. First, the jury should never have been provided figures of net income. And second, allowing the jury to consider these figures for any purpose is a misstatement of the law in fee condemnation proceedings. See McCune, 487 N.W.2d at 84. In determining whether the jury was misdirected upon the measure of damages, all instructions will be read and considered together.... 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 636, at 179. Instruction 17 clearly tainted the other instructions given and allowed the jury to consider inadmissible evidence. Reading all these instructions together, because of the instruction allowing the jury to consider net income, the court's instructions were improper and the error justifies a new trial.