Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Martin
| Citation | 388 S.E.2d 346,193 Ga.App. 566 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | A89A1168,Nos. A89A1139,s. A89A1139 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al. v. MARTIN et al. MARTIN v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Kutak, Rock & Campbell, Charles N. Pursley, Jr., Albert Sidney Johnson, Atlanta, for appellants.
Bovis, Kyle & Burch, John M. Bovis, B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Michael S. Young, Atlanta, for appellees.
Reynolds & McArthur, Charles M. Cork III, Macon, amicus curiae.
Pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-100 et seq., condemnation proceedings were instituted against a portion of a tract of property owned by Donald Martin and leased to Electrical Distributors, Inc. (EDI). An appeal was taken from the special master's award of compensation. As to Martin, the jury found that the property was not unique and an award of $297,500 as the fair market value of the condemned property was made. As to EDI, the jury found that the property was unique and an award of $200,000 as the business loss occasioned by the condemnation was made. In Case No. A89A1139, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and DeKalb County (Condemnors) appeal from the judgment entered on the jury's verdict. In Case No. A89A1168, Martin and EDI cross-appeal from that judgment.
1. At the close of the evidence, the Condemnors moved for a directed verdict on the issue of EDI's entitlement to a recovery for a business loss as a separate element of compensation. The trial court denied this motion. After judgment was entered on the jury's verdict, the Condemnors filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. This motion was also denied. The Condemnors enumerate as error the denial of these motions for directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v.
Department of Transp. v. Dixie Hwy. Bottle Shop, 245 Ga. 314, 315, 265 S.E.2d 10 (1980). " (Emphasis supplied.) Old South Bottle Shop v. Dept. of Transp., 175 Ga.App. 295(1), 333 S.E.2d 127 (1985). The Condemnors urge that no probative evidence as to either the existence or the amount of any decrease in EDI's value as a business was adduced and that the issue of EDI's recovery of a business loss was, therefore, erroneously submitted to the jury.
The Condemnors' own expert testified that, in his opinion, there was no difference whatsoever in the pre-condemnation and post-condemnation value of EDI as a business. This shifted the burden to EDI to come forward with evidence to show that a compensable decrease in its value as a business had occurred. See generally Department of Transp. v. Bird, 158 Ga.App. 369, 371, 280 S.E.2d 394 (1981). Martin, as the majority shareholder and president, testified on behalf of EDI. After giving his reasons, Martin testified that, in his opinion, EDI had "lost seven to eight million dollars" as the result of the condemnation. However, Martin never gave any opinion as to whether or how this loss would translate into a specific decrease in the value of EDI as a business. A loss of profits, a loss of customers, or a decrease in a business earning capacity may be considered as factors which enter into the ultimate determination of the compensable decrease in the value of a business. However, those factors do not themselves represent separate elements of damage. Old South Bottle Shop v. Dept. of Transp., supra. Thus, EDI may have produced evidence that, as the result of the condemnation, it had lost some "seven to eight million dollars" in the form of lost profits, loss of customers or a decrease in its earning capacity. However, it produced no evidence as to whether that loss had resulted in a decrease in its value as a business and, if so, the specific amount of compensation that would be recoverable therefor. See generally State Hwy. Dept. v. Andrus, 212 Ga. 737, 95 S.E.2d 781 (1956). Compare Department of Transp. v. Driggers, 150 Ga.App. 270, 257 S.E.2d 294 (1979). Martin never testified that, as the result of the factors enumerated by him, it was his opinion that a purchaser would have been willing to pay only a specific lesser amount for EDI as an on-going business than he would have been willing to pay before the condemnation.
In the absence of some evidence to guide the jurors in determining the existence and amount of a decrease in the value of EDI as a business,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Atlanta v. Lei, No. A04A1836.
...emphasis supplied.) Morris v. Savannah Valley Realty, 233 Ga.App. 762, 765(4), 505 S.E.2d 259 (1998). 18. See MARTA v. Martin, 193 Ga.App. 566, 567-568(1), 388 S.E.2d 346 (1989) (jurors were erroneously allowed to reach a verdict as to the existence and the amount of a business loss sustain......
-
Whitfield v. Department of Transp., A00A1891.
...relocated in the area, and that Green suffered damages measured by the loss of the value of the business. MARTA v. Martin, 193 Ga.App. 566, 567-568, 388 S.E.2d 346 (1989); Dept. of Transp. v. Kendricks, 148 Ga.App. 242, 244-247, 250 S.E.2d 854 (1978). Contrary to the contention of Whitfield......
-
Fulton County v. Dangerfield
...in context, it is observed that the condemnor does not contest the relevancy of the denial of the permit. See MARTA v. Martin, 193 Ga.App. 566(2), 388 S.E.2d 346 (1989). The witness' opinion was based on statements made by city employees before the hearing and by the Mayor and MARTA represe......
-
Cornwell v. State
......Marcus Davis, Steven A. Suna, Atlanta, for appellant. Thomas C. Lawler ... recognizes Bundren as the controlling authority and points out that in Bundren, the "charges were ......
-
A Critical Review of Law of Business Loss Claims in Georgia Eminent Domain Jurisprudence - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...v. Myszka, 246 Ga. 571, 573, 272 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1980)). 82. See supra note 71 and accompanying text. 83. See, e.g., MARTA v. Martin, 193 Ga. App. 566, 567, 388 S.E.2d 346, 347 (1989); Old South Bottle Shop, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 175 Ga. App. 295, 295, 333 S.E.2d 127, 128 (1985); ......