Opinion ID: 1711146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in prohibiting the browns from recovering market value of the house on the property taken, and/or costs of moving the house from the premises and costs of reconnecting the house utilities.

Text: ¶ 12. The Browns argue that they were entitled to compensation for the portion of the house taken and for damages to the remainder. The Browns contend that they never agreed to give up any compensation in order to move the whole house. Once the house was loaded on the house movers truck, the Browns contend that it became personal property and they were entitled to the $12,000 expense of moving the house. In the process of moving the house, the plumbing and electrical wiring had to be removed. The Browns contend that the costs of rewiring and replumbing the house and constructing the steps should be paid to them under the Mississippi Relocation Assistance Law Miss.Code Ann. §§ 43-39-1 to -29 (1993 & Supp. 1998). The Browns assert that if they had purchased another property that needed utilities, the costs would be covered under the above statute. Additionally, the Browns argue that Hazel Brown, as a displaced person or business as described in § 43-39-5 is entitled to the additional $25,000 payment under § 43-39-9. The Browns contend that the business has been shut down since the taking in April 1996, and the inventory and equipment are still in storage because the moving and relocation expenses have not been paid. Finally, the Browns contend that they have had to spend money on moving the house and attorney fees trying to get just compensation for their property that was taken. ¶ 13. The Commission argues that in sustaining it's Motion in Limine, the trial court was enforcing a court-approved settlement agreement between the Browns and the Commission. The Commission, in accordance with the statute, had also offered $4,394, plus an additional maximum of $1,000 re-establishment expenses by letter date December 13, 1995. The Commission contends that the record is clear that the Browns, through their attorney, asked the trial court to prevent the MDOT from destroying the building and further asked the trial court to allow the Browns to be given and to move the building. MDOT argues that the trial court made clear that if the court signed the order giving them the building and allowing them to move the building, the Browns would have no claim for damages to the building or for expenses associated with moving the building. ¶ 14. MDOT argues that the doctrine of estoppel applies to preclude the Browns from asserting any entitlement to damages or expenses because the Browns led the trial court and the MDOT to believe that they agreed to the terms stated by counsel for MDOT. ¶ 15. MDOT condemned a portion of the Browns property upon which a building was partially located. MDOT planned to tear down the building, which would have displaced the Browns antique business. However, the Browns requested that they be given the entire building and be allowed to move the building since it was of no use to MDOT. MDOT agreed to give them the building. Concerning the MDOT allowing the Browns to move the house, the trial judge stated that there was an agreement that MDOT would not be held responsible for moving expenses nor that MDOT ever had title to the building. The Browns now dispute this supposed agreement and assert that they should have received market value for the house and/or received relocation expenses under Mississippi Relocation Assistance Law. ¶ 16. Relocation assistance as provided for in the Mississippi Relocation Assistance Law was adopted in 1972 to comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance in Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. This Act attempted to set out fair and equitable treatment of those displaced by acquisition of private property for federally funded projects. Relocation assistance includes moving expenses for the dislocated person, his family, business, farm operation, his personal property, replacement housing for a home owner displaced from his dwelling, replacement housing for tenants, relocation assistance and advisory services. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Waller, 353 So.2d 755, 757 (Miss.1977). Since the parties agreed that the Browns could have the building and remove it, then it should be considered their personal property of which relocation expenses should be provided. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-39-7(1)(a) provides: If a displacing agency acquires real property for public use, it shall make fair and reasonable relocation payments to displaced persons and businesses as required by this chapter for: (a) Actual reasonable expenses in moving himself, his family, business, farm operation or other personal property.... ¶ 17. The question that arises is whether the Browns waived any rights to claim for expenses associated with moving the building. The following took place with regard to the agreement: Mr. Berry [attorney for the Browns]: My understanding is that the house will be moved in two weeks; that the DOT will that they will put in there that they never had ownership of the house, and that the DEQ will be notified immediately. The Court: Yes, sir. Mr. Berry: And I would just like to put in the order that neither party is giving up any of their rights. The Court: And I think he is talking about putting in the order the fact that they don't claim any ownership in the house. Mr. Berry: I understand. The Court: And you're agreeing to that? Mr. White [attorney for the Commission]: And I am also saying that the order should state that the house should be excluded from any appraisals and that the Department of Transportation will not be liable for the moving expenses. The Court: That's the main thing we need in there, that they won't be liable for the moving expenses. Mr. Berry: I don't know if they are liable for it or not, to tell the truth, judge. The Court: Well, I'll agree that your people should be responsible for moving it if they want the house. That's clear enough to me. Mr. Berry: Okay. You would be more experienced at this than I am. You know, I'm just pleading ignorance here today. The Court: I don't believe that. Mr. Berry: But I'm trying to represent my clients the best I can. However, I don't want to exclude any of their rights. ¶ 18. MDOT and the trial judge obviously thought that the matter was settled and that the Browns had agreed to all terms. The record indicates, however, that the Browns counsel did not waive their rights with regard to relocation and re-establishment expenses. In a letter dated December 13, 1995, MDOT stated that because the Browns were owners of a displaced business, the Department, through its Relocation Assistance Program will reimburse expenses incurred to move and reinstall personal property in the amount of $4,394 plus $1,000 on re-establishment expenses. ¶ 19. Not waiving their rights, the Browns were entitled to relocation and reestablishment expenses. However, since the Browns disagreed with the amount offered by MDOT, the proper procedure would have been an appeal within the Relocation Assistance Program, in which the landowner, aggrieved by the amount offered, as such assistance may, according to Miss.Code Ann. § 43-39-17(1)(c) (Supp. 1993), seek review by the appropriate administrative agency. 353 So.2d at 757. ¶ 20. Additionally, Miss.Code Ann. § 43-39-25 (Supp.1998) provides the following: Any person or business concern aggrieved by the determination of a displacing agency concerning eligibility for relocation payments authorized by this chapter shall have the right of appeal to the court that would have had jurisdiction if the cause were in eminent domain from such decision at any time within 20 days after actual notice to the aggrieved party.... The Browns were entitled to relocation assistance but should have followed the proper procedure in attempting to acquire that assistance by pursuing administrative remedies and if dissatisfied, then appeal. The Browns failed to follow the statutory guidelines to claim their relocation and reestablishment expenses and are not entitled to such expenses at this late date in this eminent domain proceeding. There is no merit to this issue. III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROHIBITING THE BROWNS FROM PRESENTING TO THE JURY THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING AND THAT AN ANTIQUE BUSINESS WAS BEING CONDUCTED THEREFROM. IV. THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN ERRED IN SUSTAINING MDOT'S MOTION IN LIMINE IN AN ORDER DATED JANUARY 20, 1998 WHICH PROHIBITED THE BROWNS FROM MENTIONING THE HOUSE. VIII. THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW ANY MENTION OF THE HOUSE LOCATED PARTIALLY ON THE PROPERTY TAKEN AND PARTIALLY ON THE PROPERTY REMAINING, ON THE DATE OF TAKING, APRIL 17, 1996. ¶ 21. The Browns argue that the court erred in not allowing them to testify completely. Apparently the Browns argue that they were not allowed to testify in court that there was a house on the property used as an antique business, that the court erred in sustaining MDOT's motion in limine, and that the court erred in preventing them from testifying that there was a house located partially on the taken property and partially on the remaining property at the date of taking. ¶ 22. MDOT contends that the Browns are mistaken concerning issues III, IV and VII. MDOT contends that the motion in limine did not prohibit the Browns from mentioning the fact that there was a building on the property originally. However, the order prohibited the Browns from offering evidence regarding the value of the building or the expenses associated with moving the building. ¶ 23. MDOT contends that witnesses for the Browns several times made the jury aware that there was a building on the property which was being used as an antique store. ¶ 24. The Browns cite no authority in support of the above contentions. As a result, We refuse to consider these issues for failure to support the already sparse argument without any authority. Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp., 697 So.2d 378, 382 (Miss.1997); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 368 (Miss. 1997) (holding that appellant bears burden of persuasion on appeal and that appellate courts will not consider issues on appeal for which no supporting authority has been cited).