Stark v. Poudre School Dist. R-1
Decision Date | 31 January 1977 |
Docket Number | R--1,No. C--699,C--699 |
Citation | 560 P.2d 77,192 Colo. 396 |
Parties | Lee A. STARK and G. D. McGarvey, Petitioners, v. POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body corporate, Respondent. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Fischer & Wilmarth, Gene E. Fischer, G. William Beardslee, Fort Collins, for petitioners.
Harden & Napheys, B. F. Napheys III, Ralph B. Harden, Fort Collins, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review Poudre School District v. Stark, 35 Colo.App. 363, 536 P.2d 832 (1975). We reverse and remand with directions that the order be set aside and a redetermination made in light of the principles and directives articulated in this opinion.
In 1972, the Poudre School District commenced an eminent domain proceeding to acquire a nine-acre tract in the City of Fort Collins. See Colo. Const. Art. II, Sec. 15; section 123--10--2, C.R.S.1963. Prior to trial, a hearing was held to determine the propriety of presenting evidence to the commission regarding the probability of rezoning the property. The trial court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible, based upon an insufficient foundation to show the probability of rezoning. In a motion for a new trial, the condemnee submitted affidavits alleging misconduct by the commissioners in making an independent investigation and determination of value which was not based upon the evidence.
At the conclusion of the In limine hearing, the trial court ruled that insufficient evidence had been presented to establish the probability of rezoning and that, therefore, the condemnee would not be allowed to present evidence of such probabilities to the commission. The court of appeals, in affirming, simply noted that the trial court had not abused its 'considerable discretion in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a reasonable probability of a zoning change occurring within a reasonable time.'
The condemnee offered expert testimony as to the probability of rezoning this particular property, based upon the expert's evaluation of prior rezoning trends for similar properties in Fort Collins. The trial court refused to hear the testimony. It sustained the school district'sobjection that While we recognize the broad discretion vested in the trial court in considering the qualifications of an expert and the admissibility of expert opinion, we find that the record clearly reflects an erroneous legal test as the basis for the court's ruling.
The rule is clear in this jurisdiction that the probability of rezoning may be considered by the commissioners Insofar as it would reasonably be reflected in present market value. However, a totally speculative or conjectural estimate of future use of property would not and should not be reflected in the determination of the property's present value. Accordingly, unless the evidence relating to the likelihood of rezoning rises to the level of a probability, it is inadmissible in a condemnation proceeding. The role of the commission is simply to determine the true market value. As we said in Department of Highways v. Schuloff, 167 Colo. 72, 445 P.2d 402 (1972):
(Emphasis added.)
Department of Highways v. Schuloff, supra, quoting Wassenich v. City of Denver, 67 Colo. 456, 186 P. 533 (1919); Accord Morgan v. City of Overland Park, 207 Kan. 188, 483 P.2d 1079 (1971); Masheter v. Mariemont, Inc., 36 Ohio App.2d 78, 302 N.E.2d 583 (1971); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Carlson, 463 S.W.2d 74 (Mo.App.1970) ; Sunland Supply Co. v. State, 392...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helmick Family Farm, LLC v. Comm'r of Highways
...the evidence relating to the likelihood of rezoning rises to the level of a probability, it is inadmissible." Stark v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1 , 192 Colo. 396, 560 P.2d 77, 79 (1977). In addition, the reasonable probability of rezoning must be in the near future. Dep’t of Pub. Works & Bldgs. ......
-
Palizzi v. City of Brighton
...rezoning and development, to the extent that it relates to the present market value of the property. Stark v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1, 192 Colo. 396, 398, 560 P.2d 77, 79 (1977); Schulhoff, 167 Colo. at 76, 445 P.2d at 404. In so doing, however, the jury may not consider the future use as an ......
-
Board of Assessment Appeals of State of Colo. v. Colorado Arlberg Club
...ruled that reasonable future use is relevant to market value in several eminent domain cases. See, e.g., Stark v. Poudre School Dist. R-1, 192 Colo. 396, 398, 560 P.2d 77, 79 (1977) (effect of rezoning on present market value may be considered if it rises to level of a probability); Schulho......
-
Helmick Family Farm, LLC v. Comm'r Highways
...the evidence relating to the likelihood of rezoning rises to the level of a probability, it is inadmissible." Stark v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1 , 192 Colo. 396, 560 P.2d 77, 79 (1977). In addition, the reasonable probability of rezoning must be in the near future. Dep't of Pub. Works & Bldgs. ......
-
Appendix B EMINENT DOMAIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS
...devoted at the time of the taking"). 3. Regarding the probability of the property being rezoned, see Stark v. Poudre School District R-1, 192 Colo. 396, 560 P.2d 77 (1977) (evidence of the probability, but not of only a possibility, of a rezoning may be considered); and State Department of ......
-
Chapter 35 - § 35.2 • EMINENT DOMAIN UNDER STATE LAW
...Co., 781 P.2d 122 (Colo. App. 1989). [134] Dep't of Highways v. Schulhoff, 445 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1968); Stark v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1, 560 P.2d 77 (Colo. 1977); City of Aurora v. Webb, 585 P.2d 288 (Colo. App. 1978); Palizzi v. City of Brighton, 228 P.3d 957 (Colo. 2010).[135] Wassenich v. C......
-
Tcl - Eminent Domain Law in Colorado - Part Ii: Just Compensation - November 2006 - Government and Administrative Law
...of Denver, 186 P. 533, 537 (Colo. 1920); Dept. of Highways v. Schuloff, 445 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1968). 50. Stark v. Poudre School Dist. R-1, 560 P.2d 77, 79 (Colo. 1977) ("totally speculative or conjectural estimate of future use of property" is inadmissible). See also Colorado Jury Instruction......
-
Status of Landowner's Property Slated for Condemnation
...v. Scurvin Ditch Co., 22 Colo. App. 120, 125 P. 552 (1912); City and County of Denver v. Minshall, 109 Colo. 31, 121 P.2d 667 (1942). 9. 192 Colo. 396, 560 P.2d 77 (1977). 10. Id. at 399. 11. 13 Colo. Law. 1893 (Oct. 1984) (App. No. 82CA0886, annc'd Aug. 30, 1984), petition for cert. filed,......