Almond v. M. A. R. T. A., 63200

• Decision Date: 05 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 63200,63200
• Parties: ALMOND v. M. A. R. T. A.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 129

288 S.E.2d 129

161 Ga.App. 363

ALMOND v. M. A. R. T. A.

No. 63200.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 5, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1982.

Certiorari Denied April 8, 1982.

Eugene R. Simons, Atlanta, for appellant.

Charles N. Pursley, Jr., Jo Lanier Meeks, Atlanta, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in an eminent domain case.

1. The appellant excepts to the first sentence of the following excerpt from the charge: "I charge you that replacement value is not a proper standard for the measure of damages in a condemnation action unless you find that the property is so unique that it cannot be valued by any other method. I further charge you that the replacement cost of any improvements may not be considered without taking into consideration the depreciation. Depreciation must necessarily be considered when the property and improvements are less than new."

Assuming without deciding that the jury would in fact have understood that the "replacement value" referred to in the first sentence was intended to be the same as the "replacement cost of any improvements" referred to in the second, this case does not raise the usual attack levied against the "replacement cost less depreciation method" of appraising property, which is one of the three recognized methods of arriving at market value. Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Sou. R. Co., 245 Ga. 229 (1. A.), 264 S.E.2d 174 (1980), quoting Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta v. Troncalli, 111 Ga.App. 515, 142 S.E.2d 93 (1965). (It is noted that the words "market value" and "non-fair market value method" as used in these cases may cause some confusion. In both, the aim is to establish the market value of a designated piece of property. The three recognized methods of doing so are the comparable sales or "market" approach, the income approach, and the replacement-cost-less-depreciation approach. The latter two are at times referred to in Southern R. Co., supra, as "non-fair market" methods, meaning a method of arriving at market value other than the comparable sales method.)

The sentence objected to in the above charge is the law in some states, which have forbidden the replacement-cost-less-depreciation method in all situations except those in which the use of the property is unique so that it has little or no market value, as, for instance, an abandoned chapel or a lighthouse. See Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 38 Colo.App. 168, 558 P.2d 442 (1976). It is emphatically not the law in Georgia. "In a condemnation action evidence of the replacement cost of the property to be taken is relevant and admissible." State Hwy. Dept. v. Murray, 102 Ga.App. 210(1), 115 S.E.2d 711 (1980), quoted in Dept. of Transp. v. Kendricks, 150 Ga.App. 9, 12, 256 S.E.2d 610 (1979). "Restoration costs alone are not necessarily the measure of compensation for damaged property. Where the value of the property increases because of the restorations, then a depreciation factor should be applied to put the property owner back in the same condition that existed prior to the taking." Dept. of Transp. v. Dent, 142 Ga.App. 94(2), 235 S.E.2d 610 (1977). "However, we find no objection to a general statement of cost price to the owner as a part of [the] estimate of value, noting, however ... that if the value is based on replacement cost (as opposed to purchase cost) it must be accompanied by information concerning other pertinent factors such as depreciation." Housing Authority v. Goolsby, 136 Ga.App. 156, 159, 220 S.E.2d 466 (1975). "[T]he court erred in charging the jury that it could consider reproduction cost of the building without also instructing it to consider...