Opinion ID: 1766169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the trial court err in overruling the appellant's motion to strike the amended statement of values filed by the state highway commission of mississippi?

Text: On October 3, 1985 the State Highway Commission filed its statement of values setting forth that the fair market value on the date of the filing of the petition was $4,020.00, that the damage to the remainder was $1,650.00 and that total compensation due to Hudspeth for damages was $5,670.00. The statement of values further set forth that the elements of damage were severance and a temporary easement. The highest and best use according to the statement of values was for multi-family residential. On March 26, 1986, the State Highway Commission filed an amended statement of values which set forth that the fair market value on the date of the filing of the petition was $3,265.00, the damage to the remainder was $400.00, and that the total compensation due to Hudspeth for damages was $3,665.00. The amended statement of values set forth that the element of damage was severance. According to the amended statement of values, the highest and best use was single family residential. On June 23, 1986, Hudspeth filed a motion to strike the amended statement of values filed by the State Highway Commission. The trial court overruled the motion to strike finding that the motion was not timely filed and that Hudspeth had suffered no prejudice. It is well-settled according to Mississippi case law that statements of value in an eminent domain proceeding are to be treated as pleadings are treated in civil causes in the circuit court. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-7 (1972). Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Amos, 319 So.2d 231, 233 (Miss. 1975). In Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Arndt, 304 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss. 1974) we cited 18 Am.Jur. Eminent Domain § 327 (1938) with approval wherein the text writer recognized that: The rules applicable to the amendment of pleadings generally are in general recognized in condemnation proceedings. This Court is in favor of the policy which liberally allows amendments to pleadings. Based upon Amos we find that this assignment of error is without merit.