Beasley v. Watkins-Alum Creek Co.
| Decision Date | 11 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. CA2010-09-027,CASE NO. CA2010-09-021 |
| Parties | JAMES G. BEASLEY, Director, Ohio Department of Transportation, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. WATKINS-ALUM CREEK COMPANY, et al., Appellees/Cross-appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
CIVIL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Mike DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, L. Martin Cordero, Marc A. Sigal, 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130, for appellant/cross-appellee, James G. Beasley, Director, Ohio Department of Transportation
Bruce L. Ingram, Joseph R. Miller, John M. Kuhl, 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008, for appellees/cross-appellants, Watkins-Alum Creek Co., Therll W. Clagg, Larry D. Clark, and R and C Rivers Farms L.P.
Robert L. Hammond, 129 North Hinde Street, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160-2292, for appellees/cross-appellants, Watkins-Alum Creek Co., Therll W. Clagg, Larry D. Clark, and R and C Rivers Farms L.P.
David B. Bender, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, Daniel W. Drake, 110 East Court Street, 1st Floor, Washington C.H., Ohio 43160, for defendants, Fayette County Treasurer and Fayette County Auditor
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, James G. Beasley, Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), appeals from a judgment of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, in which a jury awarded defendants-appellees/cross-appellants, Watkins-Alum Creek Company, its principal owners Therll W. Clagg and Larry D. Clarke, and its lessee, R and C Rivers Farms L.P. (collectively, "Watkins"), a total sum of $1,408,346 as compensation for the appropriation of real property and for damages to the residue. Watkins cross-appeals from the trial court's judgment entry denying its motion for fees and costs pursuant to R.C. 163.21.
{¶2} In January 2003, Watkins-Alum Creek Company purchased approximately 240 acres of real property located in Fayette County, Ohio for $1,220,000. The property, which contained a house, two barns and a silo, consists of undeveloped farmland that was originally located outside the limits of the city of Washington Court House. The property was leased to R and C Rivers Farms L.P. for farming purposes. In 2004, Watkins hired Byrd & Houck, a land planning and landscape architecture firm, to survey its land and to create a proposed initial zoning classification for the property. On December 21, 2004, the property was annexed into the city of Washington Court House and a zoning map was approved. The property was zoned for residential and commercial use. Although services, including water and sewer, were permitted to be extended to the newly annexed property at the property owner's expense, Watkins has not developed water or sewer systems on the property.
{¶3} Prior to March 2005, Watkins was notified of a road improvement project thatwould affect its property.1 ODOT had announced its plan to extend State Route 753 (S.R. 753) from U.S. Route 22 (U.S. 22) to U.S. Route 62 (U.S. 62) as a means of alleviating tractor-trailer traffic traveling on Fayette county roads. The extension of S.R. 753 calls for a limited access highway to be constructed through Watkins' farmland. The project required ODOT take by eminent domain 15.925 acres of Watkins' property, including the house, barns, and silo. The roadway constructed on the property will split Watkins' property into three separate residues. The left residue will consist of 93.465 acres, the smaller right residue 11.144 acres, and the larger right residue 119.625 acres. The smaller right residue will have unrestricted access to Washington-Waterloo Road, and the larger right residue will have unrestricted access to Stuckey Road and Washington-Waterloo Road. To prevent the left residue from being landlocked, a 60-foot break in access on S.R. 753 has been granted. ODOT intends to build a 12-foot field drive within this break in access to replace in kind a field drive currently being utilized on the property.
{¶4} On June 12, 2008, ODOT filed the present petition for appropriation, seeking to take 15.925 acres of Watkins' property and establish just compensation for the real property appropriated and the value of damages to the residue. At this time, ODOT, who believed that the value of the property appropriated and damages to the residue totaled $340,038, deposited this amount with the trial court. A jury trial was originally set for July 23, 2008, but did not commence until June 7, 2010. The only issue before the jury was the amount of compensation owed for the property taken and the damages to the residue. The jury heard testimony from Clagg, Clarke, and two expertappraisers, Robert Weiler, Watkins' expert appraiser, and Thomas Kaliker, ODOT's expert appraiser, regarding the amount due to Watkins as a result of ODOT's appropriation.
{¶5} After a three-day trial, the jury awarded $238,875 as compensation for the real property permanently taken, $846 as compensation for a temporary easement, and $1,168,825 for damages to the residue. On August 10, 2010, the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict. Thereafter, on September 3, 2010, the trial court entered judgment denying Watkins' request for costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and appraisal fees, pursuant to R.C. 163.21.
{¶6} ODOT appeals the jury verdict, asserting the following three assignments of error:
{¶7} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF ODOT BY PERMITTING EVIDENCE OF LOSS OF ACCESS TO A ROADWAY WHICH NEVER EXISTED AND TO WHICH LANDOWNER NEVER HAD ACCESS."
{¶9} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶10} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF ODOT BY PERMITTING EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF ALL ACCESS EXCEPT FOR 12 FEET WHEN THE TAKING EXPRESSLY RESERVED A PERMISSIBLE, 60 FEET WIDE ACCESS POINT."
{¶11} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶12} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF ODOT BY PERMITTING EVIDENCE OF A COST TO CURE TO BE ADDED TO DAMAGES TO THE RESIDUE."
{¶13} Watkins cross-appeals the trial court's denial of costs and expenses under R.C. 163.21(C), alleging the following assignment of error: {¶14} Cross-Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶15} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT CROSS-APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER THEIR COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER R.C. 163.21, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BECAUSE IT HAD SET THE INITIAL TRIAL DATE FOR LESS THAN 50 DAYS AFTER ODOT FILED THIS ACTION."
{¶16} In its first assignment of error, ODOT argues that the trial court improperly permitted Watkins, over ODOT's repeated objections, to present evidence that it was harmed by loss of access to the proposed S.R. 753. Further, ODOT argues that the court erred by allowing Watkins to present evidence that the residue was damaged by the loss of "access points" from a road that did not exist on its property. The trial court permitted Watkins to introduce into evidence a map of the property which contained an image of a roadway running through the property. The map, which was prepared by Byrd & Houck for purposes of getting the property rezoned when it was annexed into the city of Washington Court House, depicts a private roadway nearly identical to the proposed S.R. 753 extension project, except the roadway was not limited access. The map of the roadway contains various arrows which were intended to represent points of access from the roadway to Watkins' property. Although the depicted roadway was never built, Watkins' repeatedly referred to six different points of access from the nonexistent road to the left residue and the smaller right residue that it claimed were lost as a result of ODOT's taking and expected project.
{¶17} "In a partial takings case, the owner is entitled to receive compensation not only for the property taken, but also for damage to the residue as a result of the take."Proctor v. NJR Properties, L.L.C., 175 Ohio App.3d 378, 2008-Ohio-745, ¶15. "The rule of valuation in a land appropriation proceeding is not what the property is worth for any particular use, but what it is worth generally for any and all uses for which it can reasonably and practically be adapted." Masheter v. Kebe (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 148, 151. Accordingly, (Citations omitted.) NJR Properties, L.L.C., 2008-Ohio-745 at ¶15.
{¶18} In the present case Watkins was entitled to present evidence of the devaluation in the fair market value of its property after ODOT's taking. Watkins introduced permissible testimony regarding how the highest and best use of its property changed from mixed use to agricultural use as a result of a loss of ingress and egress to the left residue. Watkins went beyond what is permissible, however, when it argued and presented testimony that the residue was harmed by the loss of specific access points from a roadway that has never been constructed on the property. It further went beyond what is permissible when it presented testimony that the residue was devalued because it lost access to the proposed extension of S.R. 753.
{¶19} At trial, Clarke testified that Watkins' property would be damaged by the loss of access to the proposed extension of S.R. 753. When asked what specific damages the right residue suffers as a result of ODOT's take, Clarke testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beasley v. Watkins-Alum Creek Co.
...Ohio 67922011 Ohio 5229JAMES G. BEASLEY, Director, OhioDepartment of Transportation, Appellant/Cross-appellee,v.WATKINS-ALUM CREEK COMPANY, et al., Appellees/Cross-appellants.CASE NO. CA2010-09-021NO. CA2010-09-027COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTYDated: Dece......