Elson v. City of Indianapolis, by and on Behalf of Dept. of Redevelopment, 30376
Citation | 204 N.E.2d 857,246 Ind. 337 |
Decision Date | 09 March 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 30376,30376 |
Parties | Robert B. ELSON, Marvel L. Elson, and Anchor Federal Savings and Loan Association, Appellants, v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, by and on Behalf of the DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Carl E. Stilwell, Stilwell, Hackemeyer & Life, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John C. O'Connor, Indianapolis, for pellee.
Appellee instituted this action against the appellants for the condemnation of appellants' real estate, for a determination of the fair market value of said real estate and the damages resulting from said condemnation. Anchor Federal Savings and Loan Association was made a party defendant below by reason of its mortgage lien on appellants' real estate.
The action was commenced with the filing of appellee's complaint on March 7, 1962, for the condemnation of appellants' real estate. Subsequently, on March 20, 1962, the court executed its entry on appellee's complaint condemning appellants' real estate, appointing appraisers, and ordering said appraisers to assess the damages sustained by appellants by reason of the condemnation and appropriation.
The report of the appraisers was filed with the court on April 16, 1962, fixing the total amount of appellants' damages in the sum of $43,000.00.
April 19, 1962, appellants filed exception to the appraisers award on the theory that the damages assessed were too low. Appellee filed exceptions to the award on April 23, 1962, on the theory that the damages assessed were excessive and that the amount of the appraisement was in excess of the true cash value of the property.
Appellants filed their request for trial by jury on April 19, 1962, and the cause was submitted to the jury on the issues formed on October 15, 1962. At the conclusion of all the evidence the jury returned its verdict awarding the appellants the sum of Forty Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-two Dollars and Fifty-eight cents ($40,742.58). The court entered judgment on said verdict, finding that the allegations of the appellee's complaint for condemnation were true; that the appellee was entitled to condemn and appropriate the real estate described in the complaint for redevelopment purposes; that of the amount of the award the defendant, Anchor Federal Savings and Loan Association was entitled to be paid the full amount of its valid mortgage on the premises in the sum of $5,046.47 as of October 31, 1962, with interest thereon from said date in the amount of $0.924 per day until paid; that the balance of the award after the payment of said mortgage lien was to be paid to appellants.
Thereafter, on November 16, 1962, appellants filed their motion for a new trial. Such motion for new trial encompasses sixteen pages of the record and is directed to alleged error of law in the rulings of the court on proffered testimony as to values and to certain instructions given and refused. Brevity does not permit setting out in full all the grounds urged. We have considered the questions raised on the admission and exclusion of evidence in such motion and conclude that the rulings of the court thereon were proper. Appellants also raise questions in the motion for new trial on the giving and refusing to give certain instructions therein set forth. Appellant alleges error in the giving of certain instructions wherein the time for the determination of value was fixed as of March 7, 1962. Appellant contends the date on which determination of value should have been made as of June 3, 1959.
It therefore appears that there are involved in the case at bar two questions that require a determination in this action, viz.:
1. Should the date on which the value of the property here condemned have been fixed as of June 3, 1959, as contended by appellants or as of March 7, 1962, as directed by the instructions to appraisers by the order of the trial court made on March 23, 1962?
2. Are appellants entitled to recover damages for the loss of their business?
Determination of these questions will, we think, eliminate the necessity of considering other questions inherent herein.
In arriving at a determination of the question posed at one above we need refer to the statute. Acts 1945, ch. 276, Sec. 17, p. 1219, being Sec. 48-8517, Burns' 1963 Replacement reads as follows:
'If the commissioners shall pay to the clerk of the court the amount fixed by the judgment, then the commissioners may take possession of and hold the interest in the real estate so appropriated for the use of the department of redevelopment, subject to a review of the amount so paid in any appeal taken as herein provided.
It is thus apparent that a certain area may be declared a 'blighted area' and yet the property therein need not be taken at the time of the declaration or at any other time. In the event that it is determined to take such property, then we are governed by the statute fixing the time when evaluation of the property shall be made. Acts 1935, ch. 76, Sec. 3, p. 228, being Sec. 3-1706, Burns' 1946 Replacement reads as follows:
'They shall determine and report:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Heslar
...State v. Jordan (1966), 247 Ind. 361, 215 N.E.2d 32; State v. Hastings (1965), 246 Ind. 475, 206 N.E.2d 874; Elson v. City of Indianapolis (1965), 246 Ind. 337, 204 N.E.2d 857. Nor is evidence as to damages for destruction of business to be allowed. State v. Hierholzer (1965), 246 Ind. 632,......
-
State v. Hastings
...as a determinant in arriving at the value of real estate, or access, in a condemnation proceedings. See: Elson et al. v. City of Indianapolis, etc. (1965), Ind., 204 N.E.2d 857. We are of the opinion that the giving of appellees instructions numbered one and two over the objection of appell......
-
State v. Williams, 2--572A5
... ... Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellant ... Hardebeck v. City of Anderson (1965), 137 Ind.App. 455, 209 N.E.2d ... 1971); Elson v. City of Indianapolis (1965), 246 ... Ind ... ...
-
Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co. v. Whitley County Rural Elec. Membership Corp.
...State v. Ensley (1960), 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342; State v. Hastings (1965), 246 Ind. 475, 206 N.E.2d 874.11 Elson v. City of Indianapolis (1965), 246 Ind. 337, 204 N.E.2d 857; Papp v. City of Hammond (1967), 248 Ind. 637, 230 N.E.2d 326; Steinmetz v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 184, 231 N.E.......