State Of Okla. Ex Rel. Dep't Of Transp. v. James R
| Decision Date | 01 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 106244,106244 |
| Citation | 2010 OK CIV APP 64 |
| Parties | STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JAMES R. , JR., and PAMELA TEAL, Defendants/Appellants, and DELAWARE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendant. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Barry K. Roberts, Norman, Oklahoma for Plaintiff/Appellee
K. Ellis Ritchie, Ryan M. Roberts, David F. Duvall, K. ELLIS RITCHIE, P.C., Pryor, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE BARRY DENNEY, TRIAL JUDGE
DISMISSED
1 This appeal arises from the trial court's order denying Defendants' Exception to Report of Commissioners. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in instructing the Commissioners not to consider damages arising from the loss of access and parking in front of Defendants' property caused by a highway project's curb and gutter construction. Having reviewed the record on appeal and applicable law, we dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
2 The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) filed a petition to acquire an interest in certain real property in Delaware County for the purpose of "establishing, constructing and maintaining" a highway in front of property owned by James R. Teal, Jr.1 and Pamela Teal (Defendants). After their appointment and instruction by the trial court, the Commissioners filed their first report on May 8, 2006, assessing just compensation in the amount of $24,600. Neither party filed an exception to this Commissioners' Report nor challenged the validity of the report or of the taking. In May 2006, ODOT filed a demand for jury trial.
3 On September 25, 2007, ODOT filed a motion in limine requesting the trial court to "exclude at trial any and all testimony of the Defendant[s'] expert appraisal witness, Chris Rolland, regarding remainder/cost of cure damages" to Defendants' building as a result of their "loss of use of pre-existing highway right-of-way for access and parking." ODOT argued Mr. Rolland's expert opinion is unreliable on this point because it is based on faulty evidence. ODOT contended that at the time of his deposition, Mr. Rolland had not seen the easement ODOT acquired back in 1941 which gave it permission to use the property for highway purposes.
4 Even though Defendants have used the highway right-of-way as access for their property and for parking, ODOT argues, this use was "entirely dependent and contingent upon [ODOT's] use of said area for highway purposes." Once ODOT decided to use the property for reconstruction of the highway per the 1941 easement, Defendants' use of the same property for access and parking was terminated. ODOT contends that, as a result, Defendants' loss of use of the property is not compensable. ODOT claimed that, because the loss complained of is not compensable, Defendants' expert should be prohibited from testifying that Defendants' building sustained a reduction in value from the "alleged loss of access and parking."
5 In response, Defendants argued the motion in limine should be denied because "the [e]ffects of the taking and project on access and parking are proper and admissible under State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Highways v. Burden, 1959 OK 60, 338 P.2d 154." Defendants argued their expert properly considered loss of access and parking in determining the impact the loss had on the value of their property.
6 After hearing both parties' arguments on ODOT's motion in limine, the trial court found a Daubert2 hearing was necessary before ruling on the issue. At the conclusion of the Daubert hearing, the trial court held in part as follows:
Again, in reviewing the-the Burden case, it is not apparent to the Court that the curbing in that particular case was built on the original right-of-way before this taking of the-the point there. And based on that, my conclusion is that the Highway Department certainly had every right, with the taking that they had from 1941, to do anything on that particular easement related to the highway. In other words, it's the opinion of this Court that if they had chosen to, they could have curbed the existing highway without even taking anything further.
The trial court also held that under Daubert, Mr. Rolland's opinion was unreliable:
particularly since [he] is unable to tell the Court how much of his value relates to the building of that curbing and therefore the... loss of the access, the Court will prohibit him from testifying as to the value that he's arrived at where he cannot say how much of that was due to what was unreliable information or... an unreliable assumption that he's made in coming up with his appraisal.
7 On January 23, 2008, Defendants filed a motion requesting the trial court to certify its Daubert order for interlocutory appeal or alternatively reappoint the Commissioners to issue an amended report to conform with the trial court's motion in limine ruling.
8 ODOT objected to certifying the ruling for appeal arguing that motion in limine rulings are advisory, non-final orders, and therefore not appealable and further arguing that the ruling is not an interlocutory order certifiable under 12 O.S.2001 952. ODOT also denied that good cause existed for the Commissioners to reassess the property and file an amended report.
9 Although the trial court declined to certify the case for interlocutory appeal, it ordered the re-appointment of Commissioners with amended instructions. The Commissioners filed their Amended Report on March 18, 2008, assessing just compensation in the same amount as its first report, $24,600.
10 On April 14, 2008, Defendants filed an exception to the Amended Report of the Commissioners claiming the instructions given to the Commissioners relating to the curbing issues resulted in Defendants being denied their constitutional right of just compensation "for the [e]ffects of the curbing upon access and parking and resulting damages occasioned thereby."
11 On April 11, 2008, ODOT filed a demand for jury trial followed a week later by Defendants' demand for jury trial.
12 On August 4, 2008, the trial court entered an order denying Defendants' exception to the Amended Report of Commissioners. The trial court held in part:
That based on all the evidence presented both in the hearing on Plaintiff's First Motion in Limine on September 27, 2007, and the evidence and arguments presented by counsel in the hearing... regarding Defendants' exception to the commissioners' award, the Court finds that Plaintiff's use of its pre-existing highway easement rights obtained in the easement dated April 21, 1941, was proper and will not result in any compensable damages to the Defendants resulting from loss of access and/or parking due to installation of curbing; that the commissioners were properly re-appointed and instructed to re-evaluate their estimate of just compensation based on the Court's September 21, 2007, ruling; and that the resulting Amended Report of Commissioners is proper; consequently, Defendants' Exception to Report of Commissioners should be denied.
Defendants appeal the trial court's ruling denying their exception to the Amended Report of Commissioners.
13 The question presented is one of law which we review de novo. K&H Well Serv., Inc. v. Tcina, Inc., 2002 OK 62, 9, 51 P.3d 1219, 1223. In a review de novo, the appellate court engages in a plenary, independent, and non-deferential examination of the trial court's legal rulings. Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 171, 5, 895 P.2d 731, 733 ().
14 Defendants filed this appeal after the trial court denied their exception to the Commissioners' Amended Report, citing 66 O.S.2001 56 and Supreme Court Rule 1.20(a)(13), 12 O.S.2001, ch. 15, app. 1, 3 as authority for us to consider this appeal. "Title 66 O.S.2001 56 provides for an appeal from the district court regarding decisions on objections to the report of the commissioners." Jones v. Ransom, 2008 OK CIV APP 44, 10, 184 P.3d 561, 563; see also69 O.S.2001 1203(f)("Either party aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the district court on exceptions to the report of commissioners....")
15 "Pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 952(b)(1), an order adjudicating an exception challenging the right to condemn, i.e., an issue regarding the taking of a property owner's interest, is appealable as a final order." State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Dep't. of Transpor. v. Mehta, 2008 OK CIV APP 25, 21, 180 P.3d 1214, 1219; see also Jerry Scott Drilling Co., v. Scott, 1989 OK 131, 9, 781 P.2d 826, 828. However, even though a trial court's order ruling on exceptions may be considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial