City of Austin v. Cannizzo
1954 Tex. LEXIS 488, 153 Tex. 324, 267 S.W.2d 808 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In determining the market value of condemned property, a court may consider a potential use that is currently prohibited by a zoning ordinance if there is a reasonable probability that the restriction will be lifted in the near future. Market value is the proper measure of damages, defined as the price between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and does not depend on the existence of a 'prevailing price' established by numerous comparable sales.
Facts:
- John Cannizzo and others owned a tract of unimproved land in Austin, Texas.
- The City of Austin initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire 4.57 acres of Cannizzo's land for school purposes.
- The land was subject to a city zoning ordinance that prohibited its use for commercial purposes.
- Evidence suggested the property was reasonably suitable and adaptable for use as a shopping center.
- There was a lack of a sufficient number of recent sales of comparable property in the immediate vicinity to establish a 'prevailing price'.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Austin brought a condemnation proceeding to acquire land from John Cannizzo.
- The Special Commissioners awarded Cannizzo $13,000.
- Cannizzo objected to the award, and the case was tried before a jury in the County Court of Travis County (trial court).
- The jury awarded Cannizzo $25,000 ($21,000 for the land taken and $4,000 for damages to the remaining tract).
- The City of Austin, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted a writ of error to the City of Austin, the petitioner.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a condemnation proceeding, does a court err by admitting evidence of a property's value for a potential commercial use when that use is currently prohibited by a valid zoning ordinance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Calvert
No, a court does not err by admitting such evidence if it is reasonably probable the zoning restriction will be lifted within a reasonable time. The proper measure of damages in a condemnation proceeding is the property's market value, which considers all factors a willing buyer and willing seller would weigh in negotiations. This includes consideration of all uses to which the property is reasonably adaptable and for which it is, or in reasonable probability will become, available within a reasonable time. If a trial judge is satisfied that there is a reasonable probability that existing restrictions may be lifted, evidence of value based on that prospective use should be admitted. The trial court did, however, commit reversible error by instructing the jury to apply an 'intrinsic value' standard instead of the market value standard simply because there was no 'prevailing price' from comparable sales.
Dissenting - Justice Garwood
The dissent does not disagree with the majority's holding on the zoning issue but argues that the judgment should not be reversed. The errors in the trial court's jury charge regarding 'market value' versus 'intrinsic value' were purely formal and harmless. The dissent contends that reversing the case based on the semantic difference between the words 'should' and 'would' in the value definition is an overly technical application of the law, especially when the condemnor city did not even claim the jury's verdict was excessive. The substance of the valuation question presented to the jury was correct, despite the confusing labels, and did not probably cause an improper judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies eminent domain valuation in Texas. It firmly rejects the idea that a property lacks a 'market value' simply because there are few comparable sales, cementing the willing-buyer/willing-seller test as the universal standard. More importantly, it establishes a key precedent allowing for the consideration of a property's potential value based on a reasonably probable future zoning change. This decision allows landowners to introduce evidence of higher-value uses that are currently restricted, potentially increasing their compensation in condemnation cases, particularly for properties in developing or transitional areas.
