Court Opinion

ID: 9651242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:11:12.218502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:31.317043
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority holds that the trial court erred in concluding that EMAA acted in palpable bad faith when rendering its estimate of just compensation. I disagree. As the trial court noted, citing Airportels, bad faith implies a tainted or fraudulent motive, and it is palpable when it is readily perceived. Opinion of the Trial Court, August 9, 1991, at 13.
Before the Board of Viewers, EMAA presented the testimony of two appraisers who valued the avigation easement at *504$2,500.00 and $59,500.00. Agostini/Cutri’s three appraisers valued the easement taken from $790,000.00 to $1,040,000.00. On August 24, 1990, the Board of Viewers awarded Agostini/Cutri damages in the amount of $484,900.00.
In response to Agostini/Cutri’s subsequent petition to compel EMAA to declare and pay estimated just compensation under Section 407 of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 P.S. § 1-407, EMAA completely disregarded the Board of Viewers’ independent determination. Instead EMAA adopted the novel and unique approach of declaring estimated just compensation at $31,000.00, the average of its own two appraisers. This hardly reflects confidence in either appraisal.
As the trial court noted, the opinions of EMAA’s appraisers were so successfully attacked and discredited on cross-examination before the Board of Viewers that they had minimal, if any, impact on the Board’s decision. Opinion of the Trial Court, August 9,1991, at 14. Consequently, the trial court did not err in concluding that the evidence of record1 establishes that EMAA did not prepare “an estimate of ‘just compensation,’ but rather an estimate of the lowest possible sum it felt could be rationalized” in order to avoid paying a reasonable amount of just compensation. This is a situation where the trial court correctly addressed the motives of the condemnor in rendering its estimate and correctly applied the provisions of Section 407(c) of the Eminent Domain Code, 27 P.S. 1-407(c). Id. Accordingly, the trial court not did not err in concluding that when EMAA set $31,000.00 as its estimate of just compensation, it was made on the basis of palpable bad faith.
*505I believe the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and the trial court’s conclusions are without error.

. The pertinent evidence, as summarized by the trial court, indicates that: (1) at the time EMAA's appraisals were made, the Board of Viewers' award of $484,900.00 was already in existence; (2) no review appraisal of EMAA's appraisals as done; (3) EMAA had applied for and received federal funding of which $349,000.00 was specifically allocated for acquiring the easement over Agostini/Cutri’s property in the approach to Runway 24; and (4) EMAA had applied for an additional $1,900,000.00 (amount needed to cover the Board of Viewers’ award, costs, attorney’s fees and delay damages) to acquire the court-declared avigational easement over the entire Agostini/Cutri property. Opinion of the Trial Court, August 9, 1991, at 8-9.