City of Columbus v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 13 November 1975
• Parties: , 75 O.O.2d 111 CITY OF COLUMBUS, Appellee, v. WILCOX et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 129

46 Ohio App.2d 129

346 N.E.2d 343, 75 O.O.2d 111

CITY OF COLUMBUS, Appellee, v. WILCOX et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Nov. 13, 1975.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence of the purchase price paid for property purchased two and one-half years previously is not per se inadmissible in an appropriation proceeding merely because the property owners allege they have made substantial improvements in the interim and a change in the character of the neighborhood has taken place.

James J. Hughes, Jr., City Atty., Robert A. Bell and Charles L. Price, Columbus, for appellee.

Clagg & Ford and Alan G. Anderson, Columbus, for appellants.

WHITESIDE, Judge.

Defendants appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas upon a jury verdict assessing the compensation to be paid defendants for certain property appropriated by the plaintiff city herein. Defendants have set forth a single assignment of error raising a single issue, as follows:

'The court erred in overruling the motion of James L. Wilcox and Therll W. Clagg is disallowed the presentation of evidence as to the purchase price of the original property.'

Unfortunately, there is no transcript of proceedings herein, defendants apparently having concluded that none is necessary, and plaintiff not having objected or requested that any portion of the proceedings be included in a transcript of proceedings. The record does reflect that, on February 18, 1975, defendants filed a motion seeking an order precluding the introduction of evidence as to the purchase price they had paid for the subject property and stating that they had purchased the property in December, 1972, for a total purchase price of $16,722.04. On April 25, 1975, this motion was overruled by the trial court. The record further reflects that the council of the city of Columbus determined the value of the property appropriated to be $60,700 and deposited that amount with the court at the time of filing the complaint. By verdict dated May 9, 1975, the jury assessed the compensation to be paid defendants for their property to be $63,500.

The only other matter in the record having any possible bearing upon the issues presented herein is defendants' answers to interrogatories, indicating that they had expended $42,067.63 in repair and improvement of this property since their purchase thereof. However, a small percentage of the items listed could not constitute improvements in any event, including utilities paid, management expenses, real estate tax, insurance, advertising, and loan payments.

Upon the record before us, we are unable to find any abuse of discretion or prejudicial error on the part of the trial court in overruling, prior to trial, defendants' motion to preclude evidence of the purchase price they had paid for the property less than two and one-half years prior to the trial. See the second and ninth paragraphs of the syllabus of Ohio Turnpike Commission v. Ellis (1955), 164 Ohio St. 377, 131 N.E.2d...