Kruncos v. City of Wausau
| Citation | 145 Wis.2d 905,430 N.W.2d 379 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1679,87-1679 |
| Parties | NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. Jean A. KRUNCOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF WAUSAU and TOWN OF STETTIN, municipal subdivisions of the State of Wisconsin, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon county: Vincent K. Howard, Judge.
Before CANE, P.J., and LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.
Jean Kruncos appeals a judgment awarding her compensation for the City of Wausau's condemnation of her property. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the testimony of her expert appraiser, Ben Sternberg. Because we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion, we affirm the judgment.
Sternberg's appraisal was submitted pursuant to sec. 32.05(2)(b), Stats. That statute requires the owner of property to submit a "full narrative appraisal" to the condemnor. Two weeks before trial, Sternberg concluded that his appraisal was inaccurate and his opinion of value was substantially increased. The change in the appraisal was not made known to the city until the opening statements to the jury. The trial court granted the city's motion to restrict Sternberg's testimony, limiting him to the appraisal he had submitted in writing.
The trial court properly limited Sternberg's testimony because it constituted an unfair surprise at trial. Evidence may be excluded if surprise would require a continuance causing undue delay or if surprise is coupled with danger of prejudice and confusion of the issues. Lease America Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 88 Wis.2d 395, 400, 276 N.W.2d 767, 769-70 (1979). We conclude that the duty to submit a "full narrative appraisal" includes a duty to update the appraisal when it is substantially changed before trial. Because Kruncos' witness list indicated that Sternberg would be her only witness, the city had the right to expect that the evidence would conform to Sternberg's written appraisal. While a party ordinarily avoids surprise by seeking discovery under ch. 804, we conclude that the duty created by sec. 32.05(2)(b) to submit a full narrative appraisal provides the condemnor with equivalent protections. When the only appraisal evidence to be submitted at trial is...
To continue reading
Request your trial