Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Gulfport using a depreciated cost methodology which included the cost of overcoming existing constraints.

Text: ¶ 60. At trial, Dedeaux sought to introduce an October 1999 Updated Evaluation of Orange Grove Utilities by CH2MHill, an independent appraiser agreed upon by Gulfport and Orange Grove Utilities, and Gulfport's March 2000 Comprehensive Master PlanWater Utilities System. The proffered testimony of Kris Riemann, Gulfport's trial representative, and Elliott was that the Updated Evaluation included surface restoration costs and the Comprehensive Master Plan noted costs incurred in a developed area. Elliott's proffered testimony specifically noted that the Comprehensive Master Plan included estimated cost itemizations to overcome existing conditions within particular subdivisions, such as [p]acked foundation materials, select soil, select sandy backfill, limestone road base restoration, two inch bituminous surface course, concrete drive or walk restoration, granular drive restoration, vegetative cover, solid sod, maintenance of traffic. ¶ 61. The trial court excluded the Updated Evaluation because it was another eminent domain case pending at approximately the same time ... that settled and... any testimony from that is not admissible.... The trial court excluded the Comprehensive Master Plan because it was created after the date of taking. ¶ 62. Dedeaux asserts that the Updated Evaluation and Comprehensive Master Plan should have been admitted for purposes of impeaching Gulfport's affirmation of the value of the Dedeaux system. Gulfport responds that the subject documents were irrelevant, as Stokes should not be impeached with a valuation with which he had nothing to do[,] and cumulative because Gulfport readily admitted that it costs more to refurbish or rebuild an existing system if the work entails tearing up and repairing streets, driveways and other existing improvements. ¶ 63. Regarding the Updated Evaluation, this Court has long held that amounts paid in settlement of eminent domain claims are not admissible to prove just compensation. Dedeaux I, 938 So.2d at 845-46 (citations omitted). But the considerations involved in a presettlement appraisal (e.g., assumption of raw land or existing constraints) could be contemplated without admitting the amounts paid in settlement. In this case, however, both the Updated Evaluation and the Comprehensive Master Plan were created after the date that Gulfport filed its complaint of eminent domain. As such, and in light of the deferential standard of review applied to the trial court's ruling, this Court cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the Updated Evaluation and Comprehensive Master Plan. See Watts, 990 So.2d at 145-46.