Kaperonis v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 49826

• Decision Date: 17 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 49826,49826
• Citation: 99 N.W.2d 284,251 Iowa 39
• Parties: Peter KAPERONIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 284

99 N.W.2d 284

251 Iowa 39

Peter KAPERONIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 49826.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 17, 1959.

Thomas J. Griffin, Sioux City, for appellants.

Gill & Dunkle, Sioux City, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

It is well known that there are no slums in Iowa. Yet it must be admitted that the property with which we are concerned in the instant case, of located elsewhere, would not have been entirely out of place in such a district. Its legal description is Lot 2, Block 18, East Sioux City, Sioux City, Iowa. It was improved--if we may so use the term--by two one and one-half story one family dwelling houses and another structure which was divided into four apartments. One of the defendant's witnesses described the houses in these terms: '* * * they were in secondary condition, lack of paint and I think at that time probably some of the windows were broken. * * * The property had grown up to weeds and generally in a poor state of repair. It was hard to distinguish the color of the buildings because of the lack of paint on the outside. * * * They had stools, no bath facilities, no central heating plant that I discovered and were in generally poor condition on the inside.' Another witness said: 'One of the smaller houses was vacant. There wasn't any basement, what they term a basement. There was a small hole in there. * * * The physical condition was very bad. Debris scattered all over and broken windows. It was not habitable in its condition. The other one of the smaller houses was occupied by an Indian lady and was in exactly the same shape as the other small house--bad condition.' As to the multiple dwelling property, the same witness testified: 'In the ones upstairs there was one stool that was used for both units. Downstairs they had separate ones and had kitchen sinks. This building was empty with a lot of broken windows. One of the doors was hanging from a part of a hinge and apparently it had not been occupied for many months.'

The entire lot, including all of the dwellings, was condemned by the defendant for highway purposes, so that the measure of damages was its reasonable market value immediately before the taking. The condemnation commission awarded the plaintiffs $4,350. Upon appeal, the case was tried to the court without a jury, with a resulting judgment for the plaintiffs of $7,600. They were still dissatisfied, and have brought the matter to this court. Two errors are assigned:

1. 'The amount awarded is grossly out of proportion to the value as shown by the evidence.'

2. 'The Court erred in refusing to take into consideration the prospective commercial and industrial value of the property by reason of its proximity to the Missouri River Navigation Docks or because of its location in a heavy industrial area.'

I. It is apparently the plaintiff's thought that the value placed upon the property by the trial court is so grossly inadequate that we should intervene. The court, trying the case without a jury, sat as the trier of the facts as well as of the law. No authority need be cited for the proposition that its findings have the effect of a special verdict and, if supported by any substantial evidence are binding upon this court on appeal, in the same manner a jury verdict would be. In the light of this rule, we are unable to find merit in the plaintiffs' first assignment of error.

The plaintiff Peter Kaperonis, who managed the real estate for himself and the other members of his family, was the only value witness for the appellants. He said the property was worth $25,000 at the time of the taking. Four expert witnesses for the defendant placed its value at $4,250, $4,100, $4,750, and $3,850, respectively. In the face of this testimony, it is clear we cannot say the finding of the trial court was so apparently and grossly wrong that substantial justice has not been done.

So far as we can follow the plaintiffs' argument at this point, it seems to be their principal contention that the rental or income return from the property was so high that injustice is apparent, and the defendant's witnesses failed to give this factor sufficient consideration. Peter Kaperonis testified that the net income from rentals for 1954, 1955, and 1956 was $1,024.86. He arrived at this figure by taking the gross rentals of $1,434.25 per year and deducting taxes of $294.51 and 'upkeep and all other expenses' of $144.88, each per year. It is then urged that the court's allowance of $7,600 cannot be made to return any such sum as the amount above set forth as the net income from rentals. It is only necessary to observe that we are not advised what the 'upkeep and all other expenses' comprises. Pictures introduced into the record show an advanced stage of deterioration of the houses. 'Upkeep' seems from all the evidence to have been a name rather than a fact; something chiefly noteworthy for its absence. Another element bearing upon the rental situation is furnished by Peter Kaperonis himself. He said: 'I have been diligent in collecting rents on all the properties but the tenants sometimes stay a month or a month and a half...