Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; August 27, 2009; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) appealed the jury's condemnation award of $400,000 to property owner Nora Ann Jordan, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted evidence regarding the property's value, particularly concerning potential rezoning. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that it must uphold the jury's verdict unless there was a significant error in the admissibility of evidence. The court clarified that minor evidentiary errors do not automatically warrant reversal unless they were materially impactful.
Jordan's family had owned the property for over 30 years, and at the time of the condemnation, she owned it individually and as a trustee. Two witnesses provided valuation estimates: Blan Jordan, who cited a current zoned value of $480,000, and real estate appraiser Dennis Carr, who offered three valuation scenarios based on current and potential zoning: between $353,250 and $392,500 for the current development, $399,422 if cleared for redevelopment under existing zoning, and $535,400 if rezoned. Carr noted that while rezoning was possible, it was not probable, leading him to conclude the property's value was $400,000. DOT's objection to Carr's testimony was denied by the trial court, and the DOT's failure to challenge Blan Jordan's valuation during the trial was noted.
DOT's motion to strike Carr's testimony regarding the property's value in light of potential rezoning was denied by the trial court. DOT also sought to replace a jury instruction on the possibility of future rezoning with its own, which focused solely on probability; this request was also denied. The jury ultimately awarded $400,000, and the trial court denied DOT's motion for a new trial. DOT's main argument hinged on the relevance of evidence regarding possible rezoning, asserting that the precedent set in Civils v. Fulton County had been undermined by Watson. The court reaffirmed that Watson supports the admissibility of evidence concerning probable zoning changes, as long as such changes are not deemed remote or speculative. The trial court's discretion in allowing Carr's testimony on potential rezoned value was upheld, as it was deemed to influence the property's present market value appreciably. The jury was entitled to weigh all evidence and was not restricted to any single witness's valuation. Additionally, evidence presented by another witness, Blan Jordan, indicating the property's current worth at $480,000, was not contested by DOT, and thus any objections to this evidence would have been unfounded. The court noted that the jury's verdict is presumed correct unless clear evidence of bias or corruption is shown, and the awarded amount was consistent with the evidence. The judgment was affirmed, with concurrence from both judges involved.
