Opinion ID: 1134395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Plaintiffs' Evidence was Insufficient to Support an Award of Damages.

Text: As previously stated, plaintiffs' complaint asks, in the event that injunctive relief is refused, for an award of damages in the sum of $8,000. Defendants contend, however, that plaintiffs have failed in their proof of damages. Without deciding whether defendants have in fact violated the building restrictions, but assuming that they did so, we believe that the proper measure of damages in such a case would be the difference between the value of plaintiffs' property with the nonconforming structure on defendants' lot (defendants' house, as built), and the value of plaintiffs' property with a structure that conformed to the restrictions on defendants' lot. This view of the proper measure of damages is in accord with this court's ruling in Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego, 267 Or. 452, 479-80, 517 P.2d 1042, 1055 (1973), wherein the court stated: The plaintiffs herein introduced evidence relating to depreciation in the market value of their property, resulting from the construction of the apartment building. If property damages are to be awarded to plaintiffs, the damages should be measured by the depreciation in the value of plaintiffs' property which is attributable to the defendants' noncompliance with the final plan. The City could, pursuant to its police powers and after complying with proper procedures, act in the public interest to zone an area, resulting in the diminution of the value of property within or without the zoned area. In such a case, any damage to a landowner need not be compensated. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). Thus, in the instant case, the City did approve the submitted plans for an apartment building adjacent to plaintiffs' property. However, as we have stated, the building actually constructed bore no relationship to the plans submitted. As a result, the ordinance was violated.       Consequently, plaintiffs are not entitled to a recovery of the full depreciation of their property caused by the construction of the Christensen apartment, but only to such depreciation that resulted from the difference between the apartment constructed and the apartment represented in the sketches which had been approved by the City.  (Emphasis added) In Frankland, the court quoted with approval from Thompson v. Smith, 119 Vt. 488, 129 A.2d 638 (1957). In Thompson, the Supreme Court of Vermont stated (129 A.2d at 653): The defendants had legal authority to construct their motel a distance of twenty-five feet from the plaintiffs' west line. The plaintiffs do not contend they are entitled to have the corner lot entirely vacated, nor are they entitled to damages which might arise from that part of the occupation of the building site which was lawful. The plaintiffs are not entitled to a recovery of the full depreciation caused by the construction of the motel on the lot adjoining, but only to such depreciation that resulted from the construction at an unauthorized proximity to the plaintiffs' property and beyond the limit prescribed by the ordinance.  (Emphasis added) See also Donaldson v. White, 261 Or. 314, 493 P.2d 1380 (1972), where this court, on the issue of damages and in a case quite similar to this one, compared the value of plaintiffs' property with defendants' house as built to its value if defendants' house had been built to conform with the applicable building restriction. The only evidence offered by plaintiffs in support of their claim of damages was the testimony of a realtor-appraiser who expressed the opinion that after the construction of defendants' house the plaintiffs' house was worth $69,000 and that it would have been worth $76,500 without the obstruction of defendants' house, that is assuming that the house to the north [defendants' house] did not exist. As previously noted, this witness gave as the reason for this difference in value the fact that the previous panoramic or unlimited view plaintiffs had enjoyed when defendants' lot had been vacant had been restricted to a limited view by the construction of defendants' house. This estimate of damages, however, is based on a comparison which does not reflect the proper measure of damages, as discussed above. The witness' conclusion that plaintiffs had been damaged in the sum of $7,500 is not based on a comparison between the value of plaintiffs' property with a nonconforming structure on defendants' lot (defendants' house, as built) and its value with a structure on defendants' lot that conformed to the restrictions. The $7,500 figure instead is based on an inappropriate comparison between the value of plaintiffs' property with a nonconforming structure on defendants' lot (defendants' house, as built) and its value with no structure on defendants' lot. [7] In other words, we do not mean to say that plaintiffs would not be entitled to damages resulting from the obstruction of their view as a result of the construction on the adjacent lot of a house of more than one story, but less than twenty-four feet in height. In such a case, however, the measure of damages would be the difference in value of plaintiff's house with its view obstructed by such a house as compared with its value in the event that a one-story house less than twenty-four feet in height were built on the adjacent lot (as permitted by the building restrictions), not as compared with its value with no house built on the adjacent lot. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of damages measured by this proper standard and, therefore, failed to carry their burden of proof of damages. It follows that although we do not agree with the reasons why the trial court entered a decree denying both an injunction and damages to the plaintiffs, we agree that the entry of such a decree was proper and that it should be and is affirmed. [8]