Paulk v. Housing Authority of City of Tupelo, 44543
| Decision Date | 30 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 44543,44543 |
| Citation | 204 So.2d 153 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joyce PAULK, Appellant, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF TUPELO, Mississippi, Appellee. |
L. G. Fant, Jr., Holly Springs, John P. Fox, Houston, for appellant.
Lumpkin, Holland & Ray, Tupelo, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Lee County awarding appellant, Joyce Paulk, $12,000 compensation for land taken in condemnation proceedings by appellee, Housing Authority of the City of Tupelo.
We are concerned here with two lots located in Tupelo, Mississippi, in an area commonly known as 'Shakerag,' a slum area which is now being transformed for commercial use. By resolution of August 5, 1958, the Housing Authority, pursuant to its power under Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated sections 7342-01 through 7342-20 (Supp. 1964), designated certain areas of the city, including 'Shakerag,' for an urban renewal project.
On June 20, 1961, the Housing Authority approved an urban renewal plan for acquiring and redeveloping these areas for light industrial and commercial uses. It filed condemnation proceedings against appellant's land in March 1963, and judgment was rendered in September 1963. However in June 1964 that judgment was declared void, and by the time the Housing Authority initiated new condemnation proceedings on April 20, 1965, appellant had removed all improvements on his land and it lay vacant. Paulk obtained a temporary writ of prohibition which stayed the condemnation proceeding, but on motion to make the writ permanent the circuit court dissolved the writ and dismissed the appellant's petition. Thereafter, the condemnation proceedings were resumed, and judgment was entered awarding appellant $45,000 compensation for his two lots. From this judgment both parties appealed to the Circuit Court of Lee County where, after a trial de novo, judgment was rendered for appellant in the sum of $12,000.
On appeal to this Court Paulk assigns that the lower court erroneously excluded from evidence the urban renewal plans for the area and erroneously granted Instruction No. 2 for the Housing Authority relating to the fair market value of the land.
We are of the opinion that the first assignment of error is well taken and will require a reversal of the case. The rule that the value of land taken by eminent domain proceedings is to be determined as of the date of filing the eminent domain proceedings is now well established within this state. See Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Wright, Miss., 203 So.2d 296, decided October 9, 1967, and Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Brown, 254 Miss. 685, 693, 694, 695, 182 So.2d 384, 386, 387 (1966). We stated in the latter case:
The agency exercising the extraordinary power of eminent domain cannot complain that the property has increased in value because of a proposed public project, until it actually files a petition to take the land by eminent domain proceedings.
The value test does not begin from the creation of the reservoir but rather from the date of taking. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Hemphill, (253 Miss. 507,) 176 So.2d 282 (1965); Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Wood, (252 Miss. 580,) 172 So.2d 196 (1965). Enhancement in value of the land prior to the taking may be shown and claimed by the landowner. Increased value of the land after the taking may be shown by the state agency to prove the value of the land at the date of the filing of the eminent domain proceedings, without regard to the injuries or benefits shared by the general public resulting from the use to which the land is to be put. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208, 134 So.2d 467 (1961). Cf. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Bridgforth, 96-CA-00926-SCT
...The potential for development is a factor to be considered in determining the value of the property. Paulk v. Housing Authority of the City of Tupelo, 204 So.2d 153, 155 (Miss.1967). However, " '[m]ere speculative uses cannot be considered.' " Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Wagley, 231......
-
Piney Woods Country Life School v. Shell Oil Co.
...a given piece of property is the price upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree. See Paulk v. Housing Authority of the City of Tupelo, 204 So.2d 153, 155 (Miss.1967). In contrast, the "market value" of a commodity in an executory contract might be determined not merely by ......
-
Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Abernathy
...of the subject property. ¶ 17. The Landowners argue that the instant action is consistent with our ruling in Paulk v. Housing Auth. of City of Tupelo, 204 So.2d 153 (Miss.1967), where we held that a landowner was entitled to fair market value of his property on the date the condemnation pro......
-
Dennis v. City Council of Greenville
...held that the "potential" for development is a factor to be considered in deriving the value of property. Paulk v. Housing Authority of City of Tupelo, 204 So.2d 153 (Miss.1967). See also Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Wagley, 231 So.2d 507, 509 (Miss.1970). And, as stated in 5 Nic......