State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Hamel, 51681
| Decision Date | 11 July 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51681,No. 2,51681,2 |
| Citation | 404 S.W.2d 736 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur H. HAMEL et al., on Exceptions of Eugene G. Tighe, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert L. Hyder, Jefferson City, Edwin B. Brzezinski, Kirkwood, for plaintiff-respondent.
Carl E. Starkloff, Walter Wehrle, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
In this action for condemnation of land for highway purposes the jury award of just compensation to Eugene G. Tighe, the owner, was $4,000, and he has appealed. The difference between the award and the amount to which he claims he is entitled under his evidence exceeds $15,000. Appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
The land involved consisted of a vacant, unimproved irregularly shaped parcel containing 6.165 acres located in St. Louis County. From that tract respondent appropriated 2.92 acres for use in the construction of Interstate Route 70. After the condemnation suit was filed, but before the commissioners filed their report, appellant sold the remaining 3.245 acres for $12,000.
On this appeal appellant presents two points. The first, which he designates as the 'principal point relied on,' is that 'the court erred in failing to set aside the verdict of the jury and to grant a new trial by reason of the inadequacy of the jury's verdict under the evidence.' Appellant argues that while there always will be a difference in opinion among appraisers as to value of land, 'depending upon the client for whom they are testifying,' the verdict of the jury in this case 'was so inadequate as to shock the conscience of anyone who is familiar with the value of lands in St. Louis County.'
Appellant's tract of land was located near or adjoining several subdivision areas developed for residential housing, but it was not subdivided into lots and was not zoned. There was no constructed street leading into the property, but nearby there were one or two 'paper' streets, that is, streets shown on subdivision plats but which had not been constructed. The land was not accessible by automobile. In previous years there had been a bridge over a creek by which access could be had, but that bridge was gone at the time of the taking.
Three expert witnesses testified on behalf of appellant as to the damages sustained by reason of the result of the taking. Mr. George B. Funk, a real estate appraiser, had not been on the property until four to six months prior to trial, which was after the highway was constructed. He described the land as having a 'roughly rolling' topography but 'not hilly.' In his opinion immediately prior to the taking the land had a value of $52,000, after the taking the remainder was worth $12,000, and the net loss to appellant was $40,000. He explained that in arriving at his opinion he had considered the general development in the area, and the influence of Pasadena Hills, a nearby residential subdivision. He also considered a sale of nearby land consisting of 7.6 acres for $80,000 to the Y.M.C.A. However, this land was located on Bermuda Avenue at the interchange of Interstate 70, and had on it a fifteen-room house which was built in 1902 but which was still in use.
Mr. Theodore Martin, a realtor, expressed the opinion that prior to the taking the land was worth $52,000 and that the remainder after the taking was worth $24,000, leaving a net damage of $28,000. He arrived at this opinion by working out a 'hypothetical subdivision.' He described the land as roughly rolling, and stated that a creek had to be crossed to get to the property.
Mr. H. J. Krueger, a real estate appraiser, stated that he had been acquainted with appellant's property since the 'first of the year,' and that in 1954 he was familiar with vacant land in the area. He expressed the opinion that before the taking the land was worth $52,500, that the remainder of the land after the taking was worth $21,000, and that appellant's net damage was $31,500. He stated that the land included a crown or a high point and then dropped down to a watershed creek. The land taken by the State was the portion which dropped into a draw with the creek, and the portion remaining included the crown or high point.
Appellant testified that before the taking his land was worth $60,000, that he sold the remaining portion for $12,000 and that his damages were $48,000. He also offered evidence of a sale by him in 1955 of a tract of land consisting of 10.395 acres to Mr. Harry Shapiro for $94,500. This land fronted on Bermuda Street, a paved street, and the land was fairly level.
Respondent first offered evidence of two sales of nearby land which it contended was comparable. We need not elaborate on the details, but the price for one tract was $1,050.23 an acre, and the price for the other was $1,250.00 an acre. Two expert witnesses testified for respondent concerning appellant's damages. Mr. William S. Garton, a real estate broker and appraiser, testified that he had been on appellant's property prior to the taking and was familiar with it. The only access to the property was from San Diego Avenue, a 'paper' street, and it was necessary to cross a creek over which there was no bridge. Based upon what he considered to be comparable sales in the area, and his experience in the real estate business, he expressed the opinion that the value of the property before the taking was $7,780.50, the value of the remaining property was $4,867.50, which he 'rounded off' at $5,000, and appellant's net damage was $2,789.50, which he 'rounded off' at $3,000. He commented on the sales of other land presented by appellant, but said that he did not so consider them to be comparable, and he stated his reasons therefor.
Mr. Arthur A. Schneider, a realtor and an appraiser, stated that appellant's property was vacant, unimproved land covered with trees, weeds, and scrub timber, and that a creek had to be crossed to gain access. In his opinion, the value of the land before the taking was $8,250, and the remainder after the taking had a value of $4,500, leaving a net damage to appellant of $3,700. He also stated that he did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Grissom, 8769
...HOGAN, P.J., and TITUS, J., concur. 1 State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Eilers, Mo., 406 S.W.2d 567; State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Hamel, Mo., 404 S.W.2d 736; State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Koberna, Mo., 396 S.W.2d 654; Public Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Jackson County v.......
-
Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of City of Joplin v. Joplin Union Depot Co.
...366 S.W.2d 475, 482(8).11 State ex rel. State Highway Com'n, v. Eilers, Mo., 406 S.W.2d 567, 575(17); State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Hamel, Mo., 404 S.W.2d 736, 739; Belvidere Development Co., supra note 6, 315 S.W.2d at 785(9); City of St. Louis v. Buselaki, 336 Mo. 693, 80 S.W.2d 8......
-
St. Louis Cnty. v. River Bend Estates Homeowners' Ass'n
...abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2008); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Hamel, 404 S.W.2d 736, 739 (Mo.1966). Mr. Demba's testimony describing the value of the 15 acres as $1.3 million provides substantial evidence to......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Eilers, 51448
...evidence.' City of St. Louis v. Buselaki * * * (336 Mo. 693), 80 S.W.2d (853) loc. cit. 857(7)." State ex rel. State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Hamel, Mo., 404 S.W.2d 736. See also City of St. Louis v. Vasquez, Mo., 341 S.W.2d 839; State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Tighe, Mo.......