Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Cook

• Decision Date: 07 October 1974
• Docket Number: No. 74--43,74--43
• Parties: ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Gerald COOK et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 215

514 S.W.2d 215

257 Ark. 98

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Gerald COOK et al., Appellees.

No. 74--43.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 7, 1974.

Thomas B. Keys, James N. Dowell, and Billy Pease, Little Rock, for appellant.

Robert C. Compton, Brown, Compton & Prewett, El Dorado, for appellees.

HOLT, Justice.

Appellant instituted this eminent domain action for the acquisition of some of appellees' lands which were needed for the relocation of an existing highway fronting upon appellees' homesite. The appellee, Gerald Cook, and his expert value witness estimated appellees' damages at $10,000 and $7,000 respectively. Appellant's witness estimated damages at $1,500. The jury awarded $8,750 as just compensation. For reversal appellant contends that the 'before' valuation of the landowner and his value witness, as revealed on cross-examination, is devoid of a fair and reasonable basis. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.

In determining whether a verdict is supported by substantial evidence we review the testimony in that light which is most favorable to the appellee and indulge all reasonable inferences favoring the support of the judgment. Ark. Hwy. Comm'n v. Duff, 246 Ark. 922, 440 S.W.2d 563 (1969). Appellee lived in the area all of his life and acquired the property in question approximately nine months before appellant began acquisition proceedings. He purchased the twenty acres involved as a homesite as well as pasture land for his cattle. The appellant, in relocating the highway from the front of appellees' property, acquired a strip of land containing 2.17 acres which bisected the twenty acre tract. This resulted in leaving appellees' home, his barn and other improvements on approximately four acres that existed between the old road and the new highway. This left approximately thirteen acres, his pasture land, completely separated from his barn and other facilities.

The appellee landowner testied that he had purchased the twenty acre tract for $10,000 and estimated the fair market value at the time of the taking nine months later at $25,000. On cross-examination he justified this before taking value on the basis that he had spent $6,000 improving that home before moving into it, had built a pond and had 'cleaned up' some of the property. The relocation of the road had cut through and destroyed his pond. He lost the use of his barn for the thirteen acre residual tract except by transporting hay across the new highway or driving the cattle across it to the barn. According to him he would have to be 'hauling all the time.' 'I wouldn't have time for nothing else.' It was necessary to lease other lands to pasture his cattle. He testified the price of property 'goes up each year around here' and he considered himself 'lucky' to have purchased the twenty acre tract for $10,000.

Appellant in its original brief asserts that this testimony does not constitute a fair and reasonable basis for the landowner's before value estimate. Appellant agrees that a landowner is a competent witness to testify as to the value of his land simply because he owns it. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Jones, 256 Ark. ---, 505 S.W.2d 210 (1974). However the landowner must relate a satisfactory explanation on cross-examination to justify his value estimate. Ark. Hwy. Comm'n v. Duff, supra. In the case at bar the thrust of appellant's argument relates primarily to the recent purchase of the property and the asserted inflated value placed upon it by appellee at the time of appellant's acquisition. The difference between the recent purchase price of the property and the before value placed upon it by the landowner is only one item to be considered. The most critical thing that can be said about this disparity is it would tend to weaken the landowner's opinion which is a credibility factor for the jury to determine. We said in Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21, 398 S.W.2d 201 (1966), the cross-examination must elicit evidence that demonstrates a witness '(had) no reasonable basis whatever for his opinion evidence.' Certainly it was not demonstrated in the case at bar there was no fair and reasonable basis whatever to support the landowner's opinion.

Appellant also contends that the opinion of the expert value witness was not predicated upon a fair and reasonable basis with respect to the 'before' value. He attributed $8,500 as the value to the improvements and $13,000 for the land. The court, on appellant's motion, disallowed his estimate of improvements as he was not sufficiently familiar with its recent condition. It appears that this witness was a lifelong resident of the county and had been engaged for 46 years in the abstract business. At the same time he had kept himself informed about land transactions in the area and had 'traded' land around this particular area including pasture land, homesites, etc. He said the...