Opinion ID: 453396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: just compensation for the temporary taking of nemmers's land.

Text: 6 The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V. The object of just compensation is to return property owners to the status quo ex ante, making them whole through the award of proper damages. This Court has declared that the owner of the taken property 7 is entitled to its value at the time of the taking plus an amount sufficient to produce the present full equivalent of that value paid contemporaneously with the taking   . The goal is to place the owner in as good position pecuniarily as if the property had not been taken   . Interest at a reasonable rate is a suitable measure for determination of the amount to be added. 8 Antoine v. United States, 710 F.2d 477, 479-80 (8th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). 9 In determining the proper measure of just compensation, we look to the market value of the parcel of land. See United States v. 47.14 Acres of Land, More or Less, 674 F.2d 722, 725 (8th Cir.1984). In the case of a temporary taking of a laundry which was compensated for by a jury award based on hypothetical rental value, the Supreme Court approved the notion of a transferable value or market value in formulating damages: As opposed to such personal and variant standards as value to the particular owner whose property has been taken, this transferable value has an external validity which makes it a fair measure of public obligation to compensate the loss incurred by an owner as a result of the taking   . Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 5, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 1437, 93 L.Ed. 1765 (1945). Market value should be determined as of the date of the taking: for a temporary taking, the government is responsible for compensating the owner for the interim during which it effected the taking. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621, 659, 101 S.Ct. 1287, 1307, 67 L.Ed.2d 551 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting). 2 Thus, the proper method for calculating the damages in this case is to compute the return over three and one-half years at an interest rate of 15% on the difference between the property's fair market value when zoned L-1 and its fair market value when zoned R-3. 10 In determining market value, we have approved the use of evidence of comparable sales as the best evidence of damages on the rationale that comparable sales on the whole reflect the principle of a willing seller and a willing buyer concluding arms-length negotiations. 47.14 Acres of Land, 674 F.2d at 726. Although the degree of comparability between two given parcels of land is not always easy to determine, comparability can be regarded as a function of the similarity of the characteristics of the properties, their geographic proximity, and the recency of sale, or contract for sale. United States v. 428.02 Acres of Land, 687 F.2d 266, 271 (8th Cir.1982). Because exact comparability is difficult to achieve (short of a recent sale of the same property), the relative importance of the sale of comparable property is reflected in the weight it is given by the trier of fact in the particular proceeding. See id. Perhaps most importantly, [w]hen there are no comparable sales, market value must be estimated. 47.14 Acres of Land, 674 F.2d at 725. 11 Nemmers's expert testified that the difference between the residential and industrial value of the property was $510,000; the city's expert calculated the estimated value of the difference in zoning at $141,450. The district court rejected Nemmers's valuation because that estimate was based on a multiple regression analysis which considered only a limited sample of dissimilar properties. The district court also rejected the city's valuation because that estimate did not provide appraisals for the property in its unimproved state. Accordingly, the district court declined to award damages because of the uncertainty and speculative nature of these estimates. 12 We cannot say that the district court clearly erred in rejecting Nemmers's estimate of the diminution of the property's value, despite his expert's attempts to account for bias in his methodology. We do believe, however, that the district court should have accepted, at a minimum, the city's estimate of diminished value of $141,450. The city's expert submitted a report which outlined his method of calculating this figure and he testified at trial that he continued to believe that that figure was the correct result. In addition, we note that the city's expert's report accepted and relied on the interest rate of 15% proposed by Nemmers. Although we recognize that the report of the city's expert is not without limitations, 3 we believe it was error to regard the defendant's minimal estimate as so inherently uncertain and speculative as to deny damages entirely. 13 Accordingly, the district court shall enter an order awarding damages of $89,812.35, which reflects a 15% return compounded annually on a diminution in the property's value of $141,450. 14