Board of Trustees v. B. J. Service, Inc.
Docket: 7570
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; September 27, 1965; New Mexico; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled on the appeal by the Town of Farmington following a condemnation case involving B.J. Service, Inc. The district court awarded B.J. Service $13,902 after determining that the condemned land was an integral part of its operations, which were disrupted by the diagonal division of the property. Key findings included the necessity for B.J. Service to cross the right-of-way to conduct its business, the presence of specialized equipment with minimal resale value, and significant costs associated with relocating improvements. The court addressed the valuation of the property, confirming a pre-condemnation value of $4,000 per front foot, with additional benefits, and a net damage of $1,240 for the land taken. The court rejected the Town's argument that certain costs (e.g., sales expenses and relocation costs) should not be included in damage calculations, affirming the "before and after" rule for measuring damages in eminent domain cases. This approach allows consideration of restoration costs as factors in determining property value depreciation, although such costs are not direct damage elements. When a portion of land is taken, the key issue is the reduction in overall value of the remaining tract compared to its value prior to the taking. The tribunal assessing damages must consider all factors a willing buyer would evaluate regarding the property’s market value, treating individual loss items in terms of their overall impact on that value. The trial court incorrectly treated relocation costs and sales expenses as specific damages rather than evaluating the property using the before-and-after valuation method. Due to the absence of essential findings regarding the overall property values before and after the taking, the original decision is deemed invalid. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a proper assessment of the fair market value of the entire property before and after the taking, in accordance with this opinion. Judges Chavez and Compton concur.