328 N.W.2d 875 (Wis.App. 1982), 82-052, Narloch v. State, Dept. of Transp., Div. of Highways, Dist. II
|Citation:||328 N.W.2d 875, 110 Wis.2d 274|
|Opinion Judge:||The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scott|
|Party Name:||Andrew F. NARLOCH and Ann Narloch, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Wisconsin, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, DISTRICT II, Defendant-Respondent. [*]|
|Attorney:||For the plaintiffs-appellants the cause was submitted on the brief of Thomas W. Koss of MacDonald & Koss of Union Grove.|
|Case Date:||December 10, 1982|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Wisconsin|
Submitted on Briefs Oct. 4, 1982.
Opinion Released Dec. 10, 1982.
[110 Wis.2d 275] Thomas W. Koss of MacDonald & Koss, Union Grove, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Cramer, Multhauf & Curran, Waukesha, for defendant-respondent.
Before VOSS, P.J., BROWN and SCOTT, JJ.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding the condemnees' expert testimony regarding damages due to loss of access to the state highway abutting the condemnees' property. Because we hold that sec. 32.09(6)(b), Stats., recognizes the Narlochs' loss of access as an item of loss or damage to property, we reverse.
In 1972, the Narlochs purchased property fronting on Highway 59 in Waukesha county for investment purposes. On November 13, 1979, the State took 2.11 acres of net land from the Narlochs' parcel. The "award of damages" also restricted the Narlochs' access to Highway 59 to a single point along their approximately one-quarter mile of frontage. 1 The Narlochs appealed the award of damages directly to the circuit court of Waukesha county.
At trial, the Narlochs' expert witness, Carl Kielesch, testified that the highest and best use of the real estate was for residential
development and that, in his opinion, [110 Wis.2d 276] the before value was $79,800 and the after value was $70,000, resulting in total damages to the remainder of $9,800. In making his appraisal, Kielesch attributed $6,120 of the damage to the taking of the land and $3,680 damage to the restriction of access to Highway 59. During the trial, the court prohibited Kielesch from testifying that, in his opinion, there was a diminution in value due to the Narlochs' loss of right of access. At the close of the trial, the court specifically instructed the jury to disregard any testimony in regard to loss of access rights to Highway 59 because the Narlochs were not entitled to compensation for such loss.
After verdict, the Narlochs moved for a new trial on several grounds, among them, the court's ruling prohibiting testimony as to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP