State v. Petropoulos
346 S.W.3d 525, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1133, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 416 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a partial-takings condemnation case, a landowner is entitled to damages for the diminished value of their remaining property only if they prove that the condemnation itself was the cause of the decrease in the remainder's market value.
Facts:
- The State of Texas sought to acquire 0.33 acres of a 3.5-acre tract owned by Chris and Helen Petropoulos for the expansion of U.S. Highway 290.
- The Petropouloses' appraisal expert, Mark Smith, testified that the entire property was worth $4.13 per square foot before the taking but gave no opinion on the remainder's value after the taking.
- The State's appraisal expert, Paul Hornsby, testified that the property was worth $2.00 per square foot both before and after the taking, concluding the taking caused no damage to the remainder's value.
- The Petropouloses used Hornsby's deposition testimony to establish a post-taking value for the remainder but did not offer any direct evidence that the taking caused a decrease in its value.
- Smith, the Petropouloses' expert, testified that converting the highway to a toll road would make 'impulse retail' use less financially feasible due to altered accessibility and exposure to traffic, but did not quantify this as a loss in market value caused by the taking.
- The Petropouloses offered no evidence of a material and substantial impairment of access to their remaining property.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas initiated condemnation proceedings against the Petropouloses.
- Special commissioners awarded the Petropouloses $116,080, an amount the State objected to, transforming the case into a civil suit in trial court.
- The trial court granted a partial directed verdict establishing the post-taking value of the remainder property based on the State's expert testimony.
- The trial court submitted a single question to the jury, asking for the fair market value of the entire property before the taking.
- The jury found a pre-taking value of $579,348, and the court calculated damages by subtracting the directed verdict remainder value, awarding the Petropouloses $303,178.
- The State, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The State, as petitioner, then sought and was granted review by 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:
In a partial-takings condemnation case, must a landowner prove that the condemnation itself caused a decrease in the market value of the remaining property to be entitled to compensation for damages to that remainder?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Johnson
Yes. In a partial-takings case, just compensation is the value of the property taken plus any damage to the remainder caused by the condemnation. The landowner bears the burden of proving a causal link between the taking and any alleged damage to the remaining property. The trial court's jury charge was erroneous because it only asked the jury to determine the pre-taking value of the whole property and did not require a finding on whether the taking caused damage to the remainder. This effectively removed the essential element of causation from the jury's consideration. Furthermore, the landowners failed to present any evidence of compensable remainder damages; testimony regarding diminished financial feasibility due to altered traffic flow and visibility is not compensable under established precedent like State v. Schmidt. Because there was no evidence of compensable remainder damages, the landowners are only entitled to compensation for the value of the part actually taken.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the causation requirement for recovering remainder damages in Texas eminent domain law. It prevents landowners from recovering damages based solely on a difference between two appraisal values without affirmatively proving the condemnation project caused the loss. The case solidifies the principle that damages from non-compensable factors, such as traffic diversion or reduced visibility, cannot be repackaged as a loss to the remainder's highest and best use. This ruling provides clear guidance to trial courts to submit broad-form jury questions that explicitly include the issue of causation, ensuring this critical factual element is decided by the jury rather than assumed by the court.
