Condemnation Case Study
In a recently tried condemnation case presented to a jury consisting of eight people, the property condemned was a shopping center taken by the State for the purpose of building a new public school.
The condemnation began with a notice of taking sent to the Property Owner. The property was appraised on behalf of the State and the amount the State considered the property was worth was offered to the Owner.
The Property Owner contacted us to ask our assistance in determining whether this was a fair offer. There was no dispute about whether or not the State had the right to take the property for a public purpose. However, it was our opinion that the amount of the condemnation award was not enough money. We based our findings on our knowledge of comparable sale and real estate lease transactions that formed the support for this appraisal. We communicated this to our Client, the Property Owner. We then consulted with a licensed Appraiser who confirmed our findings.
Our next recommendation to the Client was to seek a review of this award by requesting a Condemnation Commissioners’ hearing. This hearing was like a mini-trial. Appraisers for the Property Owner (not high enough) and the State (the offered value was plenty) testified about the fair market value of the property. The Commissioners’ panel consisted of three members—one was an appraiser, and the other two were lawyers appointed by the Court to hear the matter. The two attorneys relied on the appraiser member of the panel very heavily in deciding that the award offered by the State was sufficient. We felt that the Appraiser-Commissioner and the Attorney-Commissioners ignored compelling valuation evidence in finding that the amount of the award should not be increased.
Accordingly, we recommended an appeal of this finding to the Court and we requested a jury trial. This was an important decision because the Judge assigned to the case was not familiar with condemnation issues and felt that the Commissioners’ finding should not be disturbed.
The trial was a six day see-saw battle. The selection of jurors was very important. We listened very closely to the Judge’s questioning of potential jurors and had to make quick, yet informed, decisions about which jurors to remove from the jury box. Compelling opening statements had to be made that would make the jurors understand the case and still have sympathy for our position. We then had to present our expert testimony through an appraiser and make sure our appraiser presented clear, logical information about property valuation. This may have represented the jurors’ first exposure to such issues. Our appraiser and her proofs had to be properly presented because we knew the opposing attorney would subject her to a difficult cross examination.
We then had to find errors and inconsistencies in the State’s appraisal report and cross examine their appraiser in such a way that would impress the jurors and make them believe that our appraisal was the best evidence.
After the proofs were presented, we synthesized the days of trial and presented a closing argument to the jury that would make them sit up and take notice.
All of the above was very effective for our client and a significant verdict was achieved. This is the approach we follow in our condemnation cases. It can be a blueprint for success.