Opinion ID: 3176863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶2. United Assets owned 23.52 acres at the northeast intersection of Evelyn Gandy Parkway (Highway 42) and Interstate 59 in Forrest County. The property was accessible by a frontage road along Evelyn Gandy Parkway and was unimproved except for an abandoned house and shed. MTC filed a complaint to condemn 11.5 acres of the property, including all of the highway frontage. ¶3. The taking was part of a two-phase construction project to facilitate faster traffic flow at the intersection. Phase 1 included building a new access ramp on the taken property leading from Evelyn Gandy Parkway to I-59. Phase 2 included building a flyover that would span the length of the taken property and block the visibility of the remainder from the highways. Paul Purvis, a project engineer for the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), testified that Phase 1 construction was scheduled to begin in 2018, and that the timing of Phase 2 was not definite. ¶4. The taking rendered the remaining 12.02 acres landlocked. At the time of the trial, United Assets had been using a gravel road that crossed MTC’s no-access line to get to the property. But United Assets had no permit to cross the no-access line. Purvis testified that, 2 if United Assets applied for a temporary access permit, the permit application might or might not be approved. As of the trial date, United Assets had not applied for a permit. Purvis further testified that the construction plans called for a permanent access road that would not be constructed until Phase 1, in 2018. MTC’s expert appraiser admitted that construction of this permanent access road could be delayed or canceled. ¶5. Because the parties could not agree on just compensation for the taking, a jury determined just compensation, calculated as the difference between the property’s fair market value before the taking and the remainder’s fair market value after the taking. See Miss. State Highway Comm’n v. Hillman, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565 (1940). The jury viewed the property during the trial. ¶6. Jonathan Null, MTC’s expert real estate appraiser, testified that, before the taking, the highest and best use of the property was for commercial development, due to its location off the I-59 exit ramp. Null testified that he considered three valuation approaches: the sales comparison approach, the income approach, and the cost approach. He determined that the sales comparison approach was most appropriate to value the property before and after the taking. Null explained that, when taking the sales comparison approach, the appraiser arrives at a value using sales of real estate similar to the subject property, making adjustments as needed for differences between each sale and the subject property. Using the sales comparison approach, Null arrived at a before-taking value of $60,000 per acre after adjustments, with a total before-taking value of $1,411,200. 3 ¶7. Null testified that the highest and best use of the property remained the same after the taking, because the property still was adjacent to the interstate and because there was little change in the access to the property. He found the remainder fully viable for commercial development, but he admitted that his appraisal assumed that United Assets had legal access to the remainder using the gravel road. Using the same comparable sales, he found that the per-acre value after the taking remained $60,000 per acre. Null testified that, because United Assets had lost five hundred feet of highway frontage along the frontage road, he subtracted from the value $75,000 to build a service road, $30,780 to compensate for the land used to build the road, and $30,255 to pave the gravel road to provide paved temporary access. The new service road would not front Evelyn Gandy Parkway or I-59. Null testified that the after-taking value was $585,165, and that the difference in the before and after values was $826,035. ¶8. Louis Tortorich, a managing member of United Assets, testified that it had purchased the property in 2006 for $1,355,000. He stated that United Assets had invested in the property because of the potential for high-end commercial development, such as fast-food chains, hotels, and “big-box” stores. Tortorich testified that, now, “no one in their right mind” would want to develop the remaining land in that manner. ¶9. John Stribling, a commercial real estate broker, testified as an expert in commercial real estate development about highest and best use. Stribling testified that access and visibility are vital to a commercial site, and that the property before the taking was a good site for commercial development, with five hundred feet of frontage along Evelyn Gandy 4 Parkway and five hundred feet of frontage on I-59. Stribling testified that the taken portion of the property was the most desirable portion. He stated that the remainder would not be viable for commercial development because it lies three to four hundred feet away from Evelyn Gandy Parkway, and the planned flyover would block visibility from highway traffic. ¶10. Joe Parker appraised the property before and after the taking for United Assets. He also considered the three approaches to valuation and found that the sales comparison approach was most appropriate for the property. Parker testified that, before the taking, the property was first-off-the-interstate property with good visibility. He found that, before the taking, the highest and best use was high-end, mixed-use commercial development. He stated that the property would have been appropriate for fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, and lodging facilities, with a large retail store in the back. After adjusting the comparable sales, he reached a value of $2.25 per square foot, or $2,305,195, from which he subtracted $20,000 to demolish the house and shed, for a final value of $2,285,195 before the taking. ¶11. The trial court ruled on the admissibility of each appraiser’s comparable sales outside the presence of the jury. It excluded several of the comparable sales on which Null had relied and on which Parker had relied to reach his before-taking value. But the trial court excluded all of the comparable sales supporting Parker’s after-taking value. Parker then testified that the taking of the highway frontage and access eliminated the possibility of commercial use, and that the highest and best use of the remainder would be to hold it for future development once the permanent access road has been constructed. Parker also testified that the after-taking value was zero. After hearing all the testimony, the jury found 5 that just compensation for the taking was $1,620,060.66. MTC filed a motion for JNOV or a new trial, which the trial court denied. ¶12. As mentioned above, MTC has now appealed and raises two issues. United Assets has cross-appealed, but it specifically requests that this Court take up its cross-appeal only if it finds that a new trial is warranted.