Com. Dept. of Transp. v. Prescol, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 February 1976 |
Citation | 347 A.2d 729,22 Pa.Cmwlth. 97 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. PRESCOL, INC., Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
George W. Tracy, Tracy & McNamee, Lansdale, for appellant.
Martin Burman, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before CRUMLISH, Jr., KRAMER and WILKINSON, JJ.
The paramount question presented in this eminent domain appeal undertaken by Prescol, Inc., the condemnee herein, from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which affirmed a jury of view award of $2,000.00 for property taken, is whether the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the Commonwealth's expert witness' testimony concerning the highest and best use of the condemned property. That evidence ascribed the highest and best use of the property to be commercial rather than residential as suggested by the Appellant-condemnee. We hold that no such error occurred in light of our decision in Patterson v. County of Allegheny, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 228, 325 A.2d 484 (1974).
On January 6, 1971, the Department of Transportation condemned a portion of Appellant's tract situate in Towamencin Township. It lies on the southwest corner of the intersection of two heavily traveled secondary roads, viz., Allentown and Forty-Fort Roads. Crucial to this appeal is the old, three story, brick residential (and so zoned) structure which was bisected by the taking.
A jury of view awarded $4,000.00 to the condemnee as just compensation for the taking and it appealed to the lower court where a jury fixed damages at $2,000.00. Condemnee's motion for a new trial was refused. This appeal followed.
Condemnee's principle contention on appeal, as below in its motion for new trial, is that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth's valuation expert to testify to a highest and best use of the condemned property lower than the present actual use, and which was based on speculative events in futuro. We disagree. A condemnor's expert may testify to a highest and best use which is less than that advanced by the condemnee. We have previously specifically approved that proposition in Patterson v. County of Allegheny, supra, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. at 233--34, 325 A.2d at 487, 1 where the precise situation of the battle of the experts as to highest and best use arose and we there stated:
Therefore, so long as the testimony of condemnor's expert meets the criteria enunciated in Pa. Gas & Water Co. v. Pa. Turnpike Comm., supra, that the land in question be physically adaptable to that use and that there is a need for such a use in the area as reflected by the market for the property at the time of the condemnation, See Shillito v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 434 Pa. 172, 252 A.2d 650 (1969); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Poff v. Com.
...Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 484, 593 A.2d 932 (1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 625, 600 A.2d 541 (1991); Department of Transportation v. Prescol, Inc., 22 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 97, 347 A.2d 729 (1975). However, deductions, conclusions and inferences drawn from facts presented are reviewable on appeal. ......
-
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. WWSW Radio, Inc.
...value, then what it is offered by the condemnee for the purpose of enhancing value. See Department of Transportation v. Prescol, Inc., 22 Pa.Cmwlth. 97, 101 n. 2, 347 A.2d 729, 731 n. 2 (1975). We emphasize that PennDOT was not prevented from adducing expert opinion evidence that the cost o......