|
"Testimony
on Comparable Sales Properly Barred"
By Barry A. Springer
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 1993: April 7
Attorneys faced with eminent domain cases should take
note of a recent decision by the 4th District Appellate
Court concerning land valuations in a just compensation
proceeding. (Department of Transportation v. First
National Bank of Arcola, No. 4-92-0650; released Feb.
25, 1993).
The Illinois Department of Transportation filed two suits to
condemn parts of the defendant's property in Urbana for road
improvements. Defendant First National Bank of Arcola,
trustee for the land, filed a cross-petition, alleging
damages to the remainder as a result of one of the takings.
The suits were then consolidated by agreement.
Thereafter, the defendant moved to proceed first at all states of
trial, which was denied. The plaintiff, in turn, also moved
in to bar the defendant's expert appraisal witness from
discussing certain alleged comparable sales. The trial court
reserved ruling on this motion, but partially allowed such
testimony during the expert's direct examination. At the
conclusion of his testimony, the expert stated that his
valuation opinions were the same, notwithstanding the
court's striking some of his comparable sales testimony.
The propriety of denying the defendant's motion and allowing the
plaintiff's motion was basis of the appeal.
As to the defense motion, the appeals court said that denial of
such a motion is within the trial court's discretion. On the
issue of damages to the remaining land, the court said the
defendant had not put the question before the court via a
cross-petition, notwithstanding that the cases were
consolidated (by agreement) and that there was proof of such
damages (through the plaintiff's evidence).
As to the admissibility of comparable sales, the court said that
the issue is within the trial court's sound discretion.
Under City of Chicago v. Anthony, 136 Ill.2d 169
(1990), the trial court was vested with the responsibility
to determine whether the sales at issue would reasonably be
relied upon by the appraisers, given the property and being
taken.
Here, the trial court determined that the sales at issue were not
comparable and relevant to the issue of just compensation to
be paid for the property. The appeals court found support
for the trial court's position in the fact that the
defendant's appraiser's valuations remained the same,
notwithstanding the striking of some of the sales.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
|
