Court: Supreme Court of Virginia; December 6, 1968; Virginia; State Supreme Court
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) petitioned for the condemnation of electric transmission line easements over two properties owned by Robert F. and Charles D. Shaffer (Pandora Farms) and Edwin N. Trenis. Commissioners were appointed to determine just compensation, resulting in awards of $43,880 for the Shaffer property and $38,306 for Trenis. VEPCO objected, claiming the commissioners exhibited 'improper conduct' due to bias, misunderstanding court instructions, and erroneous principles. The trial court ruled the allegations insufficient to recall the commissioners for questioning but allowed VEPCO to amend its exceptions to detail the alleged improper conduct. VEPCO's supplemental exceptions asserted that the commissioners misunderstood the court's instructions regarding property classification and improperly included land within the easement when assessing damages. After further hearings, the court confirmed the commissioners' report, leading VEPCO to appeal. The appeal raised two questions: (1) whether the trial court was required to recall the commissioners based on the exceptions alleging improper conduct, and (2) whether mere allegations of improper conduct without factual support were sufficient to warrant such action. Under Code 25-46.21, the court may only recall commissioners if there are allegations of fraud, collusion, corruption, or improper conduct. The court referenced a previous case to inform its decision.
The trial court correctly declined to question recalled commissioners on issues unrelated to fraud, collusion, corruption, or improper conduct. "Improper conduct," as defined by the applicable statute, does not encompass excessive awards, misunderstandings of court instructions, or reliance on erroneous principles. The case of State Highway Commissioner v. Skillman was deemed irrelevant since it did not address the recall and questioning of commissioners. Furthermore, prior rulings did not contradict Skillman's principles. To justify recalling and questioning the commissioners, the statute requires specific allegations of improper conduct that raise doubts about the integrity of their report. General allegations without factual support do not fulfill this requirement and are considered legal conclusions, offering no basis for the trial judge to evaluate the sufficiency of the claims or to formulate relevant questions. Allegations of improper conduct must be substantiated with facts that, if proven, would constitute actual misconduct. Allowing vague allegations to prompt recalls would enable any dissatisfied litigant to challenge commissioners’ awards without valid grounds. The court affirmed that since the allegations lacked factual support, the trial court was not obligated to recall and question the commissioners.
