Opinion ID: 1213853
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence bearing on the inverse condemnation claim

Text: Lakeview has not adequately briefed the issue of whether the admitted evidence was sufficient to prevent a directed verdict. Lakeview essentially argues only that [e]ven if the 1979 cut-off were applied, the directed verdict was still in error... . Dr. Mundy's analyses did not include pre-1979 damages. Dr. Mundy was Lakeview's expert appraiser. Our independent review of the record indicates that the evidence was not sufficient to avoid a directed verdict. Because the statute of limitations barred recovery for harm predating April 18, 1979, to prevail on its inverse condemnation claim, Lakeview had to prove the Borough caused economic loss that exceeded the impairment predating April 18, 1979. Consequently, Lakeview had to prove that odors, flies and other effects from the landfill caused additional decline in the value of its property in the ten years preceding its April 18, 1989 complaint. [13] Phillip Rahoi testified that the landfill's impacts on the Lakeview property worsened after 1979. For example, Phillip testified that there were more rats, flies and gulls on the Lakeview property after 1979. Nonetheless, Lakeview offered no evidence of the value of these increased impacts and did not otherwise quantify any incremental impact on the value of its property. [14] The only valuation evidence Lakeview presented to support its inverse condemnation claim was the testimony of Dr. Mundy, its expert appraiser. However, as counsel for Lakeview candidly conceded at oral argument, Mundy calculated Lakeview's damages by comparing the value of a totally unimpaired trailer park with the value of the Lakeview property at the time of trial. Mundy did not compare the value of the Lakeview property at the time of trial with its value on April 18, 1979, when it was already impaired, and thus did not quantify the incremental impact for the relevant period. The admitted evidence was insufficient to require the court to submit the inverse condemnation claim to the jury.