Coleman v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 19 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2013–CA–01161–SCT.,2013–CA–01161–SCT.
• Parties: Lavon W. COLEMAN v. MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

159 So.3d 546

Lavon W. COLEMAN

v.MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

No. 2013–CA–01161–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 19, 2015.

Bradley Truett Golmon, Michael N. Watts, Oxford, attorneys for appellant.

Richard G. Noble, attorney for appellee.

Before RANDOLPH, P.J., PIERCE and KING, JJ.

Opinion

PIERCE, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. This appeal arises from a dispute over just compensation in an eminent-domain proceeding between Lavon W. Coleman, a landowner in DeSoto County, and the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC), which sought to acquire 18.61 acres of Coleman's land for Interstate 269. At trial, Coleman sought to introduce evidence of the initial offer made by MTC to Coleman for her property and the first appraisal report garnered by MTC to determine the property's value, and to cross-examine MTC's appraiser about his first appraisal, as evidence that she was due more compensation than the significantly lower valuation introduced by MTC at the subsequent condemnation proceeding. The trial court subsequently denied these requests. Following a directed verdict in favor of MTC, Coleman appeals to this Court, arguing the trial judge erred by prohibiting reference to MTC's initial offer and its quick-take deposit, and by preventing cross-examination of MTC's appraiser on his valuation. We find the lower court's decision to prevent cross-examination of MTC's appraiser on his first appraisal constitutes reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting directed verdict in favor of MTC and remand this case to the Special Court of Eminent Domain of DeSoto County for further adjudication consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. In early February 2010, prior to the initiation of any litigation, MTC was required by Section 43–37–3 of the Mississippi Code to appraise Coleman's property and to make a fair-market-value offer. See Miss.Code Ann. § 43–37–3(1)(c)(i) (Supp.2014). MTC hired an appraiser, William Milton, who completed an appraisal on Coleman's land before the initiation of the suit. In its brief, MTC admits “[Milton] valued the property at $380,300 ... and [MTC] made an offer of compromise and settlement to the landowner of $380,000 by letter dated February 22, 2010.”¹

¶ 3. On September 17, 2010, MTC filed an eminent-domain complaint against Coleman in the Special Court of Eminent Domain in DeSoto County. The property was condemned pursuant to Section 11–27–81 of the Mississippi Code for immediate right of title and possession under the “quick-take statutes.” See Miss.Code Ann. § 11–27–81 (Rev.2004). Later that month, on September 30, 2010, the court appointed an independent appraiser pursuant to Section 11–27–83. On October 8, 2010, the appraiser returned his valuation of Coleman's property in the amount of $288,455. Following the court-directed appraisal, Milton appraised the land for a second time, now stating the property was worth $289,400, or roughly $100,000 less than his initial appraisal eight months earlier of $380,300.

¶ 4. On October 21, 2010, the court granted MTC immediate possession. On November 5, 2010, MTC made a “quick-take” deposit of $381,300 with the court, $1,000 of which was intended to pay the court-appointed appraiser. On December 22, 2010, MTC filed its Statement of Value in the amount of $289,400.² Coleman was required by Section 11–27–7 to submit her own Statement of Value but did not do so until after the statutory period for filing had expired and only upon a later order made by the court. In the Statement of Value that Coleman ultimately submitted in September 2012, she claimed just compensation due was either $724,310 or $799,000, depending on whether an easement was granted on part of the subject land.

¶ 5. On February 23, 2011, the court authorized Coleman to withdraw the entirety of the quick-take deposit. That day, Coleman withdrew $380,300. After the court granted three continuances to Coleman, trial was scheduled for March 4, 2013. On the morning of trial, Coleman made an ore tenus motion to introduce evidence of the quick-take deposit and to cross-examine MTC's appraiser about his prenegotiation appraisal.³ The trial judge denied Coleman's motion to introduce evidence of the deposit and prohibited any reference to any valuation prior to the September 17, 2010, filing date, as this was the “date of taking” used for valuation in condemnation proceedings per statutory authority in Section 11–27–19 of the Mississippi Code. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11–27–19 (Rev.2004). In denying Coleman's motion, the trial judge stated,

[W]hat I do know is that the money was deposited after filing of the complaint. Eminent Domain cases are unique in that some of these offers are mandated by statute. They're required to be made.... All I do know based on what has been presented to me, this money, the morning of trial, is that the money was tendered after the claim had arisen, and the claim arises when the complaint is filed, September 17, 2010. The money was deposited a couple of months later.

And, therefore, I find on what is before me that this is an offer of settlement and compromise and should be excluded.

(Emphasis added.) The trial continued, and MTC presented its prima facie case on public need and the just compensation it believed it owed to Coleman. In support of MTC's just-compensation figure of $289,400, declared in its prior Statement of Values, MTC tendered the opinion of its appraiser Milton, who also had appraised the property for the amount of $380,300 before suit was filed pursuant to Section 43–37–3 (although, per the judge's orders, this other appraisal could not be referenced). Milton testified just compensation due to Coleman was $289,400.

¶ 6. After MTC had presented its case, it made an ore tenus motion to exclude Coleman's valuation expert, Bill Sexton. Sexton intended to testify that Coleman's property was worth $799,000. MTC argued Sexton's opinion and report should be excluded because Sexton could not explain his appraisal methods. The trial judge agreed, and Sexton was excluded pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702. Coleman does not contest this ruling.

¶ 7. Following exclusion of Coleman's expert, MTC moved for a directed verdict in the amount of $289,400. The trial judge sustained the motion and then entered an order to that effect on March 8, 2013, nunc pro tunc to March 5, 2013. The Order Granting Directed Verdict provided:

This day, this cause came on to be heard upon Mississippi Transportation Commission's motion ore tenus for a directed verdict of $289,400.00 for just compensation due the Defendant, Lavon W. Coleman and the Court having considered same, and pursuant to and consistent with MRCP 50, sustained such motion. The court previously excluded the value testimony of Defendant's appraisal witness and found the only value testimony regarding the subject property in evidence was that of Plaintiff's appraisal expert.

Pursuant to Gulf South Pipeline v. Pitre, 35 So.3d 494 (Miss.2010),⁴ once the plaintiff makes a prima facie case for damages, the burden shifts to the landowner. For the landowner to receive more compensation than is shown, he must go forward with evidence showing such damage. The Defendant/Landowner was unable to provide such evidence to the jury. As no question of fact existed for the jury to consider, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion.

It is therefore ordered that Mississippi Transportation Commission's Motion for Directed Verdict be sustained and that amount of just compensation for the land owner, Lavon W. Coleman.

¶ 8. Following issuance of the order, Coleman moved for a new trial under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59. In her motion, Coleman claimed she was improperly restricted from putting forth contrary evidence of value because the judge had excluded all reference to the government's initial $380,300 offer and deposit. Coleman further asserted that, had the judge allowed reference to this evidence, Coleman would have had factual support for her contention that the property was worth substantially more than $289,400. Moreover, Coleman asserted, if contrary factual evidence had been allowed, its admission would have precluded a directed verdict. Additionally, Coleman would have had the opportunity to cross-examine MTC's witnesses about the deposit. After the motion was denied, Coleman appealed to this Court, raising the following issues, which have been consolidated as follows:

I. Whether the trial court erred when it prohibited reference to and cross-examination about the quick-take deposit, MTC's initial offer, MTC's prenegotiation appraisal report, and impeachment questioning of MTC's appraiser.

II. Whether the trial court erred when it granted MTC's motion for a directed verdict.

ANALYSIS

¶ 9. This Court reviews a trial judge's decision to admit or deny evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. If an error involves the admission or exclusion of evidence, this Court will not reverse unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party. Robinson Prop. Group, L.P. v. Mitchell, 7 So.3d 240, 243 (Miss.2009).

I. Whether the trial court erred when it prohibited reference to and cross-examination about the quick-take deposit, MTC's initial offer, MTC's prenegotiation appraisal report, and impeachment questioning of MTC's appraiser.

¶ 10. The Mississippi Constitution states that “[p]rivate property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due compensation being first made to the owner or owners thereof....” Miss. Const. art. 3, § 17 (1890). In eminent-domain cases, “[t]he condemnor has the burden of proving the value of the condemned property.” Ellis v. Miss. State Highway Comm'n, 487 So.2d 1339, 1342 (Miss.1986). “After a prima facie case has been made out by the condemnor, then, if the landowner expects to receive more compensation than that shown, he must go forward with the evidence showing such damage.” Id. (quoting Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. Crooks...