Court Opinion

ID: 9673097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:06:12.982619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.206245
License: Public Domain

ANDREASEN, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion except for division IV(C)(3) from which I dissent.
I agree diminution in market value damage is recoverable in permanent nuisance cases. However, in this case, Weinholds have failed to prove these damages. At trial Dennis Weinhold testified:
Q. Do you have an opinion, sir, what the value of your property would be without the smell? A. I think I stated in depositions in September, $40,000. Since then we’ve still built more pens since then. And that was approximately a year ago. So I assume the property values went up.
Q. With the smell, sir, what do you think you could sell your property for today? Or do you think you could sell it? A. If *468you can’t get a friend to sit there and talk to you because of the stink, he’s got to leave, I don’t see how you could get anything out of the property trying to sell it to somebody who’s going to spend their life there. I consider it worthless on the days that it stinks.
Q. Well then do you believe the fair market value at the present time would be zero? A. I believe so, yes.
The testimony that the fair market value is zero does not satisfy the plaintiffs’ requirement to prove their diminution of market value damages. See Boekeloo v. Board of Review, 529 N.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Iowa 1995).
NEUMAN and TERNUS, JJ., join this partial concurrence and partial dissent.