Fulton County v. Winkles, 70819
| Decision Date | 04 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 70819,70819 |
| Citation | 176 Ga.App. 690,337 S.E.2d 453 |
| Parties | FULTON COUNTY v. WINKLES. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert G. Young, Atlanta, for appellant.
Charles M. Kidd, David N. Schaeffer, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellant brings this appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding appellee $134,975 as compensation for the condemnation of his property. All four of appellant's enumerations of error concern the submission to the jury of the question of uniqueness and peculiar value of the property.
1. The essence of appellant's first enumeration of error is that it is improper to submit the question of uniqueness to the jury and to authorize an award based on some value other than fair market value in a case in which recovery for business losses is not sought. Appellant has not cited any case holding that such a limitation exists; we note, however, that the principles involved here have been applied by this court in a case not involving business losses. In Macon-Bibb County Water etc. Auth. v. Reynolds, 165 Ga.App. 348(3), 299 S.E.2d 594 (1983), the condemnor condemned a permanent sewer easement across the condemnees' residential property and the trial court instructed the jury that there were circumstances in which actual value and fair maket value were not the same, those circumstances involving the peculiar value of the property to the owner. After explaining at length the distinction between "unique value" and "peculiar value," this court reversed the judgment because there was no evidence to support the charge. However, there was no suggestion in that opinion that the concept of unique or peculiar value had no application to cases in which a recovery for business losses was not sought. We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that the concept should be so narrowly applied.
2. Appellant's other three enumerations of error concern jury instructions on the subject of unique or peculiar value. The three charges given set out the three tests for uniqueness enunciated in Dept. of Transp. v. 2.734 Acres of Land, 168 Ga.App. 541(3), 309 S.E.2d 816 (1983). Contrary to appellant's assertion, there was evidence to support a charge on each of the tests.
The "locality" or Troncalli rule (Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Troncalli, 111 Ga.App. 515, 142 S.E.2d 93 (1965)) was applicable here because there was testimony from witnesses for both condemnor and condemnee that there was no substantially comparable property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abm Realty v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys.
...rule have uniformly treated the particular geographic area of the taken property as an inherent part of the test.9 For example, in Fulton County v. Winkles,10 this Court held that a jury charge on the locality rule was warranted "because there was testimony from witnesses for both condemnor......
-
Department of Transp. v. Coley, 74536
...merit. [Cit.]" (Indention omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. 2.734 Acres, supra 168 Ga.App. at 545, 309 S.E.2d 816; Fulton County v. Winkles, 176 Ga.App. 690(2), 337 S.E.2d 453 (1985). 5. Lastly appellant contends that the verdict of the jury was excessive. However, because "[t]here [was] suffic......
-
Department of Transp. v. Bales
...bought or sold on the open market. We find this evidence sufficient to authorize the jury charge given. See Fulton County v. Winkles, 176 Ga.App. 690, 691(2), 337 S.E.2d 453 (1985). In regard to the peculiar value of the property to appellee, evidence was adduced that at least 40 percent of......
- Pate v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 68571