Success Stories

The published Light Rail Opinion in Johnson adv. City of Phoenix focuses on whether or not a condemning authority, like Phoenix, can appeal without paying the jury verdict rendered to the private property owner. The Court attempted to harmonize Arizona appellate procedure and eminent domain law and determined that a city must pay and may not automatically stop enforcement of a condemnation verdict pending an appeal. (OPINION)
The separate unpublished Memorandum Decision from the same light rail case we handled emphasizes the owner’s right to testify as to an opinion of value and the standards for receiving that owner opinion evidence. (Unpublished. Available by request.) The Johnson facts related to liquor license properties near Central and Camelback where the valuation opinion of the owner was based upon her active participation in the marketplace for similar property with similar zoning. The jury considered and accepted the owner testimony despite the fact that her opinion demonstrated just compensation greater than the City’s expert and greater than the Owner’s own expert.
The jury verdict was rendered in May of 2007, but these opinions were not issued by our appellate courts until 21 months later. While the process can be slow, Division One has reaffirmed that the condemning authority – the city, in this case – must pay the Owner for the private property it has already taken and may not appeal a jury verdict to defer the economic payment.
Severance damages are calculated by comparing the remaining property before and after the taking….valuation should not be applied mechanistically in eminent domain cases. City of Phoenix v. Wilson, 200 Ariz. 2 (2001).
Once the property owner establishes a taking, any factor bearing on the market value of the owner’s remaining parcels is admissible as evidence of severance damages including evidence of a 10-year delay in constructing a freeway affected market value of remaining residential parcels. The State of Arizona v. Wells Fargo Bank, 194 Ariz. 126 (Div. 1 1998).
The Fifth Amendment does not forbid the government to take land and to pay for it later. However, if payment is delayed, the owner is entitled to interest sufficient to insure that the owner is placed in as good as a position financially as he would he occupied if the payment had been made at the time of the property taking. City of Phoenix v. Campbell, 151 Ariz. 497 (Div. 1 1986).
The income value or rental value of real property is one fact affecting market value, but not the only element to be considered nor the controlling element determining valuation of real estate for property tax purposes. County of Yuma v. Tongeland, 15 Ariz. App. 237 (Div. 1 1971).
An executory agreement for sale of land is competent evidence for eminent domain purposes because the presence of escrow agreements are prima facie evidence of an underlying bilateral enforceable agreement. City of Phoenix v. Clauss, 177 Ariz. 566 (Div. 1 1994).
The separate unpublished Memorandum Decision from the same light rail case we handled emphasizes the owner’s right to testify as to an opinion of value and the standards for receiving that owner opinion evidence. (Unpublished. Available by request.) The Johnson facts related to liquor license properties near Central and Camelback where the valuation opinion of the owner was based upon her active participation in the marketplace for similar property with similar zoning. The jury considered and accepted the owner testimony despite the fact that her opinion demonstrated just compensation greater than the City’s expert and greater than the Owner’s own expert.
The jury verdict was rendered in May of 2007, but these opinions were not issued by our appellate courts until 21 months later. While the process can be slow, Division One has reaffirmed that the condemning authority – the city, in this case – must pay the Owner for the private property it has already taken and may not appeal a jury verdict to defer the economic payment.
Severance damages are calculated by comparing the remaining property before and after the taking….valuation should not be applied mechanistically in eminent domain cases. City of Phoenix v. Wilson, 200 Ariz. 2 (2001).
Once the property owner establishes a taking, any factor bearing on the market value of the owner’s remaining parcels is admissible as evidence of severance damages including evidence of a 10-year delay in constructing a freeway affected market value of remaining residential parcels. The State of Arizona v. Wells Fargo Bank, 194 Ariz. 126 (Div. 1 1998).
The Fifth Amendment does not forbid the government to take land and to pay for it later. However, if payment is delayed, the owner is entitled to interest sufficient to insure that the owner is placed in as good as a position financially as he would he occupied if the payment had been made at the time of the property taking. City of Phoenix v. Campbell, 151 Ariz. 497 (Div. 1 1986).
The income value or rental value of real property is one fact affecting market value, but not the only element to be considered nor the controlling element determining valuation of real estate for property tax purposes. County of Yuma v. Tongeland, 15 Ariz. App. 237 (Div. 1 1971).
An executory agreement for sale of land is competent evidence for eminent domain purposes because the presence of escrow agreements are prima facie evidence of an underlying bilateral enforceable agreement. City of Phoenix v. Clauss, 177 Ariz. 566 (Div. 1 1994).