Special statutory elements of compensation must be determined in initial condemnation proceedings.(Recent Court Decisions)

The statutory duty of a judge to increase a condemnation award for property with heritage value is not stayed when parties file objections to the award, according to the Supreme Court of Missouri.

The C.F. White Family Partnership and Lupton Living Trust (Trust) owns 45 acres of land in the city of Independence, 15 acres of which were condemned by the city. Pursuant to statutory procedure, compensation was assessed initially at $1.415 million by court-appointed commissioners, but both parties objected to this award and sought a jury trial on valuation.

The Trust, however, also sought a determination of the property's heritage value, defined as value added to property that has been held in the same family for at least 50 years. Under the relevant statute, the judge, "shall determine whether heritage value is payable," and if so, "shall increase the commissioners' award" by 50%; the same statute thereafter provides that if a jury trial occurs, the judge shall increase the jury verdict accordingly.

In this case, the commissioners made no Findings regarding heritage value, and the judge refused to do so, stating that his duty to determine that issue was stayed pending the jury trial. In response, the Trust petitioned the state supreme court to compel the judge to add heritage value to the commissioners' award.

On review, the state supreme court began by noting that, under the relevant statute, the judge "shall determine whether heritage value is payable," and if so, "shall increase the commissioners' award" accordingly. The court found no statutory support for the judge's position that this duty was stayed upon the filing of exceptions and pointed out that, in fact, "the determination that heritage value is payable might cause a landowner to withdraw its exceptions."

However, the court also found that state law expressly requires the commissioners and jury, not the judge, to decide whether property meets the 50-year ownership requirement. In this case, where the commissioners did not determine how long the Whites had owned the property, the judge had no factual basis on which to evaluate the heritage value issues, according to the court. The court therefore ordered the trial court judge first to direct the commissioners to determine whether the Whites have owned the property for the requisite period and then, if appropriate, to add heritage value to the award. The trial court ruling was reversed.

State ex rel. C.E White Family Partnership v. Roldan

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 16, 2008

271 S.W.3d 569 (Mo. 2008)

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates