Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, Llc
55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1387, 386 S.W.3d 256, 178 Oil & Gas Rep. 475 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Compensation for condemned property is measured by the landowner's loss (fair market value), not the condemnor's gain. An expert's valuation testimony is inadmissible if it violates the 'value-to-the-taker' rule by focusing on the condemnor's unique cost savings or benefits from the taking, such as avoiding a pre-existing contractual obligation.
Facts:
- In 1973, Avinger Timber's predecessors leased a 23.79-acre parcel to a gas processing company, which built a large facility on the land.
- Initially, the lease granted the lessee a perpetual right of renewal.
- In 1998, the lease was renewed with a successor company, but the perpetual renewal right was removed, giving Avinger a future reversionary interest in the land.
- The renewed lease stipulated that upon termination, the lessee was contractually obligated to remove its plant and all other improvements from the property within six months.
- Enbridge Processing became the successor lessee, operating the gas plant on the site.
- As the lease expiration date approached in 2004, Avinger and Enbridge Processing could not agree on new rental terms for a renewal.
- To retain the property, Enbridge Processing merged with its affiliate, Enbridge Pipelines, a public utility possessing the power of eminent domain, which then initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire the land.
Procedural Posture:
- Enbridge Pipelines filed a condemnation petition against Avinger Timber to acquire the 23.79-acre property.
- Special commissioners awarded Avinger $47,580 after Avinger failed to appear at the valuation hearing.
- Avinger objected to the commissioners' award, and the case proceeded to trial in the state trial court on the sole issue of fair market value.
- The trial court admitted the valuation testimony of Avinger's expert, David Bolton, but excluded the testimony of Enbridge Pipelines' expert, Albert Allen.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Avinger $20,955,000 as just compensation, and the trial court entered judgment on that verdict.
- Enbridge Pipelines, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Enbridge Pipelines then petitioned for review to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an expert's valuation testimony in a condemnation case violate the value-to-the-taker rule when it incorporates the cost savings the condemnor gains by avoiding a pre-existing contractual obligation to remove improvements from the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lehrmann
Yes, an expert's valuation testimony violates the value-to-the-taker rule when it incorporates the cost savings the condemnor gains by avoiding a pre-existing contractual obligation. The proper measure of compensation in an eminent domain case is the landowner's loss (fair market value), not the condemnor's gain. The court reasoned that Avinger's expert, Bolton, impermissibly focused his analysis on the substantial cost Enbridge Pipelines saved by not having to remove its gas processing plant, an obligation under the expired lease. This cost saving represents a special value unique to Enbridge as the condemnor and former lessee, rather than an element of the land's fair market value to any other potential buyer. Therefore, testimony based on this methodology is unreliable and inadmissible.
Dissenting - Justice Johnson
No, the expert's testimony did not violate the value-to-the-taker rule because it properly considered all factors affecting the property's market value. The dissent argued that professional appraisal standards (USPAP) required the expert to consider the terms of the lease, including the removal clause, as any hypothetical willing buyer would. Bolton's final valuation of $20,955,000 was based on accepted methodologies like comparable sales and income analysis for a site with valuable existing infrastructure, and he explicitly testified this value would hold even if the plant were 'swept away by a tornado.' The cost savings to Enbridge was not added to the market value; it was a factor that a prudent buyer would consider in negotiations, and Bolton properly considered it without basing his ultimate valuation on it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of the value-to-the-taker rule in eminent domain cases, clarifying that benefits unique to the condemnor, especially those arising from avoiding prior contractual duties, cannot be factored into the fair market value calculation. It establishes a precedent that cautions landowners and their experts against using a condemnor's specific circumstances, like avoided moving costs, to inflate a property's valuation. This requires valuation experts to focus exclusively on what a hypothetical willing buyer would pay for the property's inherent qualities and highest and best use, not on the unique financial gain the condemnor realizes from the taking.
Unlock the full brief for Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, Llc