City of Baton Rouge v. Mucciacciaro
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | NUMBER 2021 CA 0656 |
| Citation | 342 So.3d 955 |
| Parties | CITY OF BATON ROUGE and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Giovanni MUCCIACCIARO |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Anderson O. Dotson, III, Leo J. D'Aubin, Gwendolyn K. Brown, William R. Aaron, II, Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge
Robert T. Talley, Baton Rouge, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Giovanni Mucciacciaro
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.
In this expropriation matter, plaintiffs/defendants-in-reconvention, the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (City/Parish), appeal the award ordered by the trial court in favor of defendant/plaintiff-in-reconvention, Giovanni Mucciacciaro, as just compensation for the expropriation of his property. Mr. Mucciacciaro answered the appeal, seeking an increase in the amount of costs awarded by the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, amend in part, and remand with instructions. Additionally, we grant the answer to appeal.
On January 31, 2007, the City/Parish, acting pursuant to a Local Services Agreement and Resolution of the Metropolitan Council, filed a petition for expropriation seeking to acquire three separate parcels of land owned by Mr. Mucciacciaro for the expansion of South Sherwood Forest Boulevard at Interstate 12 in Baton Rouge, City/Parish project number 02-TL-US-0013.1 The first parcel of land (Parcel 1-2) was the location of Mr. Mucciacciaro's restaurant, Pasta Garden, which the City/Parish sought to expropriate as a partial taking. Although the other two parcels of land were zoned for residential use, one was purportedly used as the office for the restaurant (Parcel 2-1) and was expropriated in full. The other parcel of land (Parcel 2-3) was a residential rental property owned by Mr. Mucciacciaro, which the City/Parish also sought to expropriate in part. On that same day, the trial court entered an order of expropriation, expropriating the three parcels, ordering the City/Parish to deposit the sum of $1,515,278.00 into the registry of the court, and further ordering Mr. Mucciacciaro to surrender the property to the City/Parish immediately upon the deposit of the estimated compensation into the registry of the court.
The following day, February 1, 2007, the City/Parish deposited into the registry of the court the sum of $1,515,278.00 as just compensation. Of this total, $1,325,238.00 constituted just compensation for Parcel 1-2, $71,500.00 for Parcel 2-1, and $118,540.00 for Parcel 2-3. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Mucciacciaro withdrew the funds, but reserved all rights to determine any other compensation due to him for the expropriation.
On July 2, 2012, Mr. Mucciacciaro filed an answer and reconventional demand, seeking additional compensation for the expropriated properties and lost rental income from Parcel 2-3. After a bench trial on December 8-9, 2020,2 the trial court took the matter under advisement and left the record open for the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, on December 15, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of Mr. Mucciacciaro, awarding him: $3,669,143.00 as just compensation in addition to the $1,515,278.00 deposit made by the City/Parish; twenty-five percent attorney fees on the combined total of the award, plus interest; various expert fees totaling $33,375.00; expert deposition costs totaling $2,248.10; and all court costs, which were fixed at $1,436.88.3
The City/Parish then filed the instant appeal.4 On appeal, the City/Parish contends that the trial court erred in:
Mr. Mucciacciaro answered the appeal, contending that the costs awarded by the trial court in its judgment are "incomplete, and therefore inadequate" and that the judgment should be modified to award "the full and complete costs...together with legal interest thereon" in conformity with LSA-R.S. 13:5112.
According to the Louisiana Constitution, La. Const. art. 1, § 4 (A). Nevertheless, even in the exercise of its police power, private property may be taken by political subdivisions only for public purposes and with just compensation. La. Const. art. 1, § 4 (B)(1). With regard to the taking of private property, the Louisiana Constitution provides:
In every expropriation or action to take property pursuant to the provisions of this Section, a party has the right to trial by jury to determine whether the compensation is just, and the owner shall be compensated to the full extent of his loss. Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the full extent of loss shall include, but not be limited to, the appraised value of the property and all costs of relocation, inconvenience, and any other damages actually incurred by the owner because of the expropriation.
La. Const. art. 1, § 4 (B)(5). The intent of the provision to compensate the owner "to the full extent of his loss" is to permit the owner to remain in equivalent financial circumstances after the taking and be put in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have been had his property not been taken. State, Dept. of Hwys. v. Constant, 369 So. 2d 699, 701 (La. 1979) ; Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov't. v. Richard, 2015-0728 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/2/16), 196 So. 3d 684, 688, writ denied, 2016-1237 (La. 10/17/16), 207 So. 3d 1065.
The burden of proof on the property owner in an expropriation case is to establish his claims by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence; speculation, conjecture, mere possibility and even unsupported probability are not sufficient to support a judgment. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Munson, 2014-0492 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/21/15), 169 So. 3d 426, 432, writ denied, 2015-0299 (La. 4/24/15), 169 So. 3d 358. Where the landowner challenges the amount deposited as just compensation for an expropriation, a greater value must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Restructure Partners, L.L.C., 2007-1745 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/26/08), 985 So. 2d 212, 220, writ denied, 2008-1269 (La. 9/19/08), 992 So. 2d 937. The question of what damages will appropriately compensate the landowner is one of fact. Such a determination is necessarily dependent on evidence presented by expert witnesses; however, the factfinder is not obligated to accept an expert's opinion in expropriation cases, since those opinions are not binding, but are advisory in nature. Munson, 169 So. 3d at 432.
In an expropriation proceeding, a factfinder's factual determinations as to the value of property and entitlement to other types of damages are subject to the manifest error standard of review, while the amount of damages awarded is subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. The factfinder is not required to accept or reject the testimony of any particular witness, but may give whatever weight it considers appropriate to the testimony of any and all witnesses in making a factual determination of the value of the property taken. Richard, 196 So. 3d at 690.
Through its first four assignments of error, the City/Parish asserts that the trial court made "serious and significant" errors in valuing the property at issue, resulting in an "exorbitantly excessive award." We will address each parcel separately herein.
(The Restaurant Property)
At the outset, we address the City/Parish's fourth assignment of error, alleging that the trial court erred in excluding relevant portions of the City/Parish's expert's testimony, as our resolution of this assignment of error may affect the applicable standard of review. See Walley v. Vargas, 2012-0022 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/12), 104 So. 3d 93, 101.
Through this assignment of error, the City/Parish contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the City/Parish's expert to explain her opinion that the restaurant property (Parcel 1-2) was not unique and indispensable and, thus, should not be valued at its replacement cost. Generally, the trial court is granted broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings. The trial court's determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Emery v. Owens-Corp., 2000-2144 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/9/01), 813 So. 2d 441, 448, writ denied, 2002-0635 (La. 5/10/02), 815 So. 2d 842. An abuse of discretion results from a conclusion based on an erroneous view of the law or from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner. "Arbitrary or capricious" means the absence of a rational basis for the action taken. A.S. v. D.S., 2014-1098 (La. App. 4th Cir. 4/8/15), 165 So. 3d 247, 257.
Where a party asserts the trial court erred in permitting or excluding evidence, we consider whether the challenged evidentiary ruling was erroneous and whether the error prejudiced the defendant. If not, a reversal is not warranted. Emery, 813 So. 2d at 449, citing LSA-C.E. art. 103. The party challenging the trial court's evidentiary ruling bears the burden of proving that the error had a substantial effect on the outcome of the case when compared to the record in its totality. See Emery, 813 So. 2d at 449...
To continue reading
Request your trial