Department of Transp. v. .590 Acres of Land & Bryan, 69751

• Decision Date: 02 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 69751,69751
• Citation: 174 Ga.App. 589,330 S.E.2d 738
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. .590 ACRES OF LAND & BRYAN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 738

330 S.E.2d 738

174 Ga.App. 589

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. .590 ACRES OF LAND & BRYAN.

No. 69751.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 2, 1985.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1985.

Thurman E. Duncan, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Roland F. Matson, William C. Joy, Senior Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Alfred F. Zachry, LaGrange for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

The Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT), appellant here, sought to obtain for use as a public highway certain land, including the captioned .590 acres which were part of a two-acre tract belonging to appellee Bryan. DOT filed a declaration of taking and deposited with the court the amount estimated, on the basis of an appraisal, to constitute just and adequate compensation. Bryan appealed, and a Troup County jury returned a verdict in his favor for $40,000. DOT moved for a new trial on the general grounds and four special grounds and, upon receiving an adverse ruling from the superior court, has appealed to this court for reversal of the judgment below. Held:

1. In its first four enumerations appellant DOT challenges the sufficiency and competency of the evidence to support a verdict in the amount awarded. Our examination of the record before us, including the trial transcript, indicates that sufficient competent evidence was adduced to authorize a reasonable trier of fact, in the exercise of its right and obligation to assign to the various pieces of evidence such weight as it deems proper, to find a verdict in the range of $40,000. Owner/appellee Bryan testified that the loan value of the entire two-acre tract, with existing improvements, four years before the taking and shortly prior to his making certain renovations, was $20,000, as attested by documents showing a loan in that amount from a Troup County savings and loan association. He testified that before the appraiser hired by DOT ever saw the dwelling, it had been gutted by the crew hired to move the house to another part of the tract, and that the appraisal therefore did not reflect the house's true value at the time of the taking. Appellee's son, a construction supervisor, testified that the replacement value of the house was $36,000 but that, allowing for depreciation, its fair market value at the time of the taking was approximately $25,000. He further testified that the depreciated value of other improvements was between $2,000 and $3,100.

We agree with appellant that the testimony of appellee's son was flawed in that he admittedly did not know how depreciation should properly be computed. This flaw in his testimony was pointed out in the presence of the jurors, however, and they were thereby put on notice that, in attempting to ascertain the replacement value of the house and other improvements, the depreciation factor of "close to a third" suggested by the son might or might not be accurate, particularly in view of this witness' statement that he did not know the age of the house or other improvements. The jury heard the testimony of the appraiser called as a witness by appellant to the effect that the value of the entire tract of land for commercial use was approximately $15,000, and that just and adequate compensation for the approximately one-half acre taken, together with improvements, was $16,300. The appraiser assessed the value of the property not taken at $11,200 and opined that that portion of the property had suffered no consequential damages and undergone no diminution in value.

Appellee offered in evidence certified copies of documents reflecting the transfer, contemporaneously with the taking of the subject property, of comparable land situated in the immediate vicinity. By extrapolation from these documents, appellee assigned to the portion of his land which was taken a value of between $5,000 and $6,000. Appellant's assignment of error to the introduction of these documents is without merit because, contrary to the appellant's allegations, the documents were admitted only to show the basis for the...