Opinion ID: 2773003
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearing on Post-Judgment Facts

Text: The defendants appealed, but before the appeal was resolved, the defendants filed in the Court of Appeals a motion to consider as post-judgment facts that Ms. Elliott had been afforded access to her property via Miller Lane since the trial court ruled. According to the defendants, this access rendered her appeal moot. The Court of Appeals granted the defendants’ motion and remanded the case to the trial court for further findings in light of the post-judgment facts. At the November 1, 2012 hearing on remand, maps were introduced into evidence showing that Miller Lane had been relocated behind BE’s property and extended to the southwest corner of Ms. Elliott’s property, ending in a cul-de-sac. The Miller Lane extension and access road is not adjacent to I–24; rather, it abuts a portion of Ms. Elliott’s property near her home and outbuildings. Testifying at the hearing on remand, Mr. Parrish opined that, in light of the new access road, the diminution in value to Ms. Elliott’s remaining property from the lack of ingress and egress along I–24 is $1,066,496. In contrast, Mr. Sullivan testified that, in light of the new access road, Ms. Elliott has sustained no diminution in value of her -8- remaining property. After hearing the proof, the trial court reduced Ms. Elliott’s award for diminution of value by $200,000, resulting in a judgment of $650,000.