Narrative Opinion Summary
In a condemnation case, Dallas County acquired a portion of Crestview's property to expand a road, resulting in a trial that awarded Crestview compensation for the taken land and damages to the remaining property. The County appealed, challenging evidence exclusions and jury instructions, among other issues. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's methodology for calculating compensation but reversed the judgment concerning damages for impaired access and prejudgment interest, remanding these issues for further proceedings. The court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the County's expert testimony for lacking a reliable basis and admitted Crestview's owner testimony regarding property value. The court also concluded that Crestview's claims of impaired access did not exceed typical construction inconveniences, thus not warranting damages. The County's objections to the jury instructions on 'cost to cure' were not preserved for appeal, and the recalculation of prejudgment interest on the revised judgment was ordered. The appellate court's decision highlighted the importance of reliable expert testimony and proper preservation of objections for appellate review.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court excluded the County's expert witness testimony due to a lack of reliable methodology in valuing the remaining property post-taking.
Reasoning: An expert’s unsupported claims of using accepted methods are insufficient to establish reliability.
Admissibility of Property Owner Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court allowed property owner testimony regarding the impact on market value because the owner is deemed qualified to provide lay opinion on market value.
Reasoning: As a property owner, Warren is deemed qualified to testify about the market value of his property based on his own estimate, rather than intrinsic value.
Compensation for Partial Takings in Eminent Domainsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court utilized the first method of assessing compensation for partial takings, which includes the market value of the taken portion plus damages to the remainder.
Reasoning: The measure of compensation is the market value of the taken portion plus damages to the remainder caused by the condemnation.
Damages for Impaired Accesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that Crestview's claims of impaired access did not demonstrate more than typical construction inconveniences, reversing the trial court's judgment on this issue.
Reasoning: Crestview has not demonstrated that it will experience more than typical construction-related inconveniences due to the condemnation.
Definition of 'Cost to Cure'subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's definition of 'Cost to Cure' in the jury charge was contested by the County, but the objection was not preserved for appellate review.
Reasoning: The County contended in its appellant's brief that the trial court abused its discretion by including a definition that misrepresented Texas law regarding 'cost to cure.'
Prejudgment Interest and Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court directed the recalculation of prejudgment interest based on the revised judgment amount after reversing damages for impaired access.
Reasoning: The court found no error in the trial court's handling of prejudgment interest but directed recalculation based on a revised judgment amount after reversing damages for impaired access.