Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2006

Home

{ ZB. August 10, 2006 - Page 5 applicable zoning regulations. Such information did not include the full appraisal report, which was an entirely 'separate document. Had the legislature intended IDOT to provide that report, it could have stated it easily. The court could not expand the language of the law to include an appraisal report. The court noted that landowners in Tucker's position were protected by a statutory obligation of good faith negotiation. While IDOT did not have to disclose the appraisal if it was not part of its computation of the. offer, it could not conceal its appraisal report for the purpose of low-balling the landowner. see also: People v. Hunziker, 796 N.E.2d 122 (2003). Condemnation -Jury instructed to focus on portion of property during condemnation hearings City claims land is valueless by itself Citation: City of North Las Vegas v. Robinson, No. 42419, Supreme Court of Nevada (2006) NEVADA (05/25/06) - Robinson owned a 77.86 acre parcel ofland on Craig Road in North Las Vegas. The city sought to exercise its eminent-domain power to obtain a 1.54 acre strip of Robinson' s land to widen Craig Road. The city filed suit ( to affe'?t the condemnation and to determine the compensation to pay Robinson. \ The city argued that if the property was developed commercially, the 1.54 acre parcel would have been dedicated land conveyed to the city for use for direc- tional signage, fencing, and open space. Therefore, if the property was devel- oped to its highest and best use, the 1.54 acre portion would be valueless. The trial court agreed with the city and instructed the jury to ignore the highest and best use, and to focus solely on the value of the portion of condemned property. Robinson's appraiser valued the property at $536,480; thecity's appraiser valued the property, based on uses that would not trigger a dedication, at $150,920. He then discounted the value by 90 percent based on the limited purposes for which this property could be used and arrived.at a final value of $.15,000. The jury awarded Robinson $179,000. The city appealed, arguing that the award was too high. Robinson also appealed, arguing that the award was too low based on the incorrect instruc- tion to the jury to ignore the value of the entire parcel. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Robinson. The appeals court agreed with Robinson. The jury instruction was incorrect in that it instructed the jury to improperly sever the condemned portion from the entire parcel, thereby ignoring the highest and best use of the property. , Where private property was taken for public use, Nevada case law held that just compensation was determined by reference to the property's fair-market value at its highest and best use. The trial court should have instructed the jury to value the property based on the highest and best use of the entire parcel, not @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 93