Opinion ID: 848629
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the court proceedings

Text: Plaintiff filed its condemnation complaint on December 7, 1995. It again asserted that the fair market value of the land was its value for residential purposes. Defendants responded that the land was worth more than plaintiff offered due to its potential for commercial use. Plaintiff countered that rezoning was not reasonably possible. Defendants planned to present significant evidence to show that rezoning for commercial use was reasonably possible at the time of the taking. Key to their argument was evidence that the portion of the tract not condemned was in fact later rezoned commercial. Two and a half years after the taking, Novi rezoned the noncondemned land for office/service/technology use. Plaintiff made a motion to prevent introduction of this evidence. [4] The trial court heard oral argument and concluded that it was admissible. The court found it relevant, not too remote in time, and not overly prejudicial. The evidence was admitted, and the jury awarded damages consistent with defendants' evaluation, which was based on use of the land if zoned commercial. On appeal, plaintiff argued that admission of the evidence was erroneous. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting it because it tainted the jury's resolution of the `reasonable possibility' question of fact. The Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial without the erroneously admitted evidence. [5] Unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 22, 2003 (Docket Nos. 234099, 240227), 2003 WL 21699884. The Court of Appeals decision was not unanimous. The dissent argued that the majority did not give the trial court's evidentiary ruling the deference it was due and that the trial court's decision should be affirmed. It observed that this Court held in Dep't of Transportation v. VanElslander [6] that the possibility of subsequent rezoning can be relevant to the market value of land at the time of the taking. It opined that any error was harmless. Defendants sought leave to appeal to this Court. Until today, no published decision of this Court or of the Court of Appeals has directly addressed the question presented, and it is susceptible to arising again. Recognizing its jurisprudential significance, we granted leave to appeal limited to [the issues] (1) whether a posttaking zoning decision can be considered in determining value at the time of the taking, and (2) whether the Court of Appeals decision in this case is consistent with [ VanElslander, supra ]. [470 Mich. 874, 683 N.W.2d 140 (2004).]