Opinion ID: 2571591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Testimony Regarding Other Landowners

Text: In one motion in limine, the Sextons asked the trial court to preclude evidence concerning other landowners receiving compensation for takings under the City's sewer project. The parties agree that numerous other landowners in Mission Hills were affected by the City's sewer project. After the jury was empaneled but before trial began, the Sextons' attorney made an argument about anticipated evidence concerning the scope and extent of the sewer project and that it would not be a proper consideration for the jury. The trial court acknowledged that it had already ruled it would be improper to suggest that nobody else had asked for compensation. The court stated: The physical scope of the project, I'll permit. Not the financial scope of the project. The court explained that the whole scope of the project could be relevant to explain the City's easements on the Sextons' property. The City then presented evidence, over the Sextons' objections, regarding the physical scope of the sewer project. The evidence included the age of the old system, the boundaries of the project, the number of residences involved, and an overview of the project. The Sextons argue that evidence concerning the number of landowners impacted by the sewer project implied to the jury that the City already had to pay a large number of residents for easements. Other landowners' compensation, however, was never admitted into evidence; neither do the Sextons cite any authority showing that the testimony regarding the scope of the project was inadmissible. Additionally, the Sextons fail to establish a basis for finding prejudice because of the admission of the evidence. The jury was instructed that [e]nhancement or depression of value due to anticipated improvements by a project for which condemnation is sought, in this case improvement of the sanitary sewer system, are excluded from consideration in determining the fair market value of the property taken. Again, we presume that the jury followed the trial court's jury instructions. McConwell, 18 Kan.App.2d at 852, 861 P.2d 830.