Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burke-Tarr Company v. Ferland Corporation, 88-296 (2000)
Citation: Not availableDocket: C.A. NO. KC 88-296
Court: Superior Court of Rhode Island; May 18, 2000; Rhode Island; State Appellate Court
The matter was retried to assess damages following a remand from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which directed the trial court to evaluate any diminution of value to the servient estate of Burke-Tarr Furniture Store due to increased noise and traffic congestion. The court was instructed to use the comparable sales method for this evaluation. In the first trial on June 7, 1996, expert appraiser William E. Coyle, Jr. testified that the total damages to the servient estate were approximately $67,000, derived from three factors: rental value of land ($16,553), rental value of a pipeline ($11,587), and adverse market value effects ($38,566). During the second trial on October 5, 1999, Coyle revised his assessment, estimating a 10% decrease in fair market value, equating to $36,730 in severance damages, broken down into 4% for traffic impact and 6% for the pipeline and easement. He rounded traffic-related damages to $15,000. In contrast, the plaintiff presented appraiser Peter M. Scotti, who determined the property's value to be $505,000 using six comparable sales and calculated the severance damage to be $50,550, representing 10% of the fair market value due to increased traffic and noise. The court found Scotti's methodology more credible and reflective of the servient estate's value than Coyle's, noting inconsistencies in Coyle's testimony and valuation approach between the two trials. Mr. Scotti assessed the damage to the servient estate at 10% of its value, which he determined to be $505,000 in January 1986. His evaluation considered the impact of increased traffic and noise from the easement. Conversely, Mr. Coyle's damage assessment, which included three elements, did not align with his prior testimony from the October 1999 trial. He claimed that noise and traffic accounted for 4% of the total 10% adverse impact, leading to a final damage figure of $15,000 based on a disputed servient estate value of $367,300. The court scrutinized Coyle's assertion that 6% of damages were due to an underground pipeline and rental value, highlighting inconsistencies in his reports. The damages were ultimately calculated as a loss in value from the installation of the pipeline, which created increased traffic and noise affecting a neighboring furniture store. The court determined the damage to the servient estate to be $50,500, based on 10% of the appraised value, plus interest and costs, applying a statutory interest rate of 12% per annum rather than the 10% suggested by Scotti. The parties may proceed with an order reflecting this decision.