W. Va. Dep't of Transp. v. Pifer
| Decision Date | 19 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-0517,18-0517 |
| Citation | 836 S.E.2d 398,242 W.Va. 431 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, Petitioner Below, Petitioner, v. Lawrence W. PIFER and Michael E. Pifer, Respondents Below, Respondents. |
Webster J. Arceneaux, III, Esq., James C. Stebbins, Esq., Joseph L. Jenkins, Esq., Lewis Glasser PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioner
Robert L. Bays, Esq., Bowles Rice LLP, Parkersburg, West Virginia and William Crichton, V, William Crichton, VI, Crichton & Crichton, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondents
In this appeal, we are asked to review a trial court’s ruling that Respondents Lawrence W. Pifer and Michael E. Pifer were entitled to damages related to condemnation blight1 for several years preceding the filing of the condemnation petition and the manner in which the court calculated interest on the award. Respondents are brothers who own property in Wood County, West Virginia, and operate a family business on their property. The fair market value of their land with improvements is $2.5 million.
In 1998, Petitioner West Virginia Department of Transportation Division of Highways ("DOH") announced plans regarding a public improvement project that would severely impact Respondents’ property. More than a decade later, however, DOH changed the project plans and condemned only a small portion of Respondents’ property. Although relieved that their businesses were spared, Respondents introduced evidence at trial that DOH’s protracted delay in commencing the project caused them to suffer condemnation blight for years prior to DOH filing the condemnation petition. The jury awarded a nominal sum for the "taking" of the property and $175,165 in damages for condemnation blight. In its judgment order, the trial court calculated interest thereby increasing the total verdict to $466,114.
DOH argues that the Circuit Court of Wood County’s order denying its motion for a new trial and to amend or alter the judgment is a marked departure from well-established rules for determining just compensation due a landowner in a condemnation proceeding. Specifically, DOH argues the trial court erred: (1) by holding the date of take was an issue of fact for the jury; (2) by failing to incorporate condemnation blight within the context of its impact upon the fair market value of the property as of the date of the take, and improperly instructing the jury on the issue; and (3) by calculating interest in its judgment contrary to statute.2
As set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment on the jury’s award of damages for condemnation blight. However, we reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to recalculate interest on the award in accordance with West Virginia Code § 54-2-14a.
Respondents are independent operators of a gasoline service station, convenience store, and towing service in Mineral Wells, West Virginia. Respondents have operated their family business for more than twenty years on their 2.45 acre parcel that fronts County Route 14.
In April, 1996, and October, 1998, DOH held public informational meetings regarding a planned public project involving the South Mineral Wells Interchange of Interstate 77 and County Route 14 (the "project"). DOH considered several plans for completion of the project. Under the plan chosen in December, 1998, Alternate Plan C, DOH would take Respondents’ parcel of land almost in its entirety. Respondent Michael E. Pifer testified that DOH’s announcement was devastating news to him and his family.3
That was shortly after we went to that meeting over at the Mineral Wells school, and had the bomb set on us that we were the cheapest and it looked like they was going to take us. And that was in ’98. That was my anniversary message to my wife that night.
By letter dated December 18, 1998, DOH confirmed that it chose Alternate Plan C for the portion of the project west of the interstate. Mr. Pifer testified about the significance of DOH’s selection:
By letter dated March 21, 2001, DOH informed Respondents that construction plan development would begin in July, 2003, and construction would begin in "Spring 2005." DOH kept in touch with Respondents, however, and delayed moving forward on the project; construction did not begin as planned.
Subsequent to this modification, DOH again changed the project plan to avoiding taking Respondents’ sign. Ultimately, DOH sought to condemn a 116-square-foot piece of land for a noncontrolled access right of way, a 424-square-foot area for a temporary construction easement ("TCE"), and a second 53-square-foot area for another TCE (the "condemned property").
On March 9, 2010, DOH filed its petition to condemn Respondents’ land for a public use and, per West Virginia Code § 54-2-14a, deposited $3,550 with the trial court, which DOH estimated to be just compensation. As the condemned property represented only a small portion of what Respondents owned, it was considered a partial taking. Commissioners appointed to ascertain "just compensation" determined that Respondents should be awarded $17,500. Both parties objected to the commissioners’ report and the matter went to jury trial. See id . § 54-2-10 ().
In addition to seeking the usual compensation associated with a taking, Respondents sought damages for DOH’s allegedly unreasonable actions during the precondemnation period based on the length of time between the 1998 public announcement and the filing of the petition in 2010. Respondents claimed that they suffered damages for rental loss due to condemnation blight. Prior to trial, DOH moved in limine to preclude the introduction of evidence or testimony of condemnation blight, asserting that Respondents’ method for calculating those damages had not been recognized in West Virginia. DOH further moved the trial court to preclude introduction of evidence that the date of take should be earlier than the date the petition was filed. By letter to the parties, the trial court denied DOH’s motion.
The five-day trial in this matter commenced on August 8, 2017, and the jury viewed Respondents’ property after the parties’ opening remarks. Respondent’s expert appraiser, Russell Rice, testified at length regarding his investigation to determine the public project’s impact to Respondents’ property. His evaluation began with the usual two-step process: (1) he determined the fair market value of the property taken as $2,000; and (2) he determined the damage to the residue was zero. Mr. Rice explained that the threat of condemnation did not affect the value of the residue at all, but the primary influence of the condemnation blight was the loss of Respondents’ ability to negotiate a lease on the property with a major distributor from 2001 to 2010. Mr. Rice opined that Respondents suffered $35,000 in damages each year based on reasonable market rental values.
Michael E. Pifer testified that the best use of his property at the time was to lease to a major dealer/distributor of gasoline rather than to compete with one. The announcement of the project put Respondents’ property under threat of condemnation and they were unable to go forward with negotiations for a favorable lease with a larger commercial operation. Mr. Pifer stated that he was one of the last independents at any major intersection off Interstate 77 in Wood County and he simply could not compete with the larger distributors. When asked if he made any efforts following 2000 to lease the gasoline service station, Mr. Pifer explained: " Mr. Pifer stated further that Mr. Pifer claimed $812,000 in damages attributable to condemnation blight.
DOH’s expert arraiser, Roscoe Shiplett, testified that he did not see any evidence of condemnation blight when valuing Respondents’ property. He noted Respondents continued to operate their business during all relevant times.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial