1996
WAMMCO, Inc. v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r
Supreme Court of Virginia
251 Va. 132, 465 S.E.2d 584
Commonwealth was proceeding with condemnation and trial court appointed commissioners to value land. WAMMCO sought $362,496 for the 17.65 acres which was the subject of the take, and $2,414,042 for damage to the residue. Trial court excluded as too speculative WAMMCO’s evidence of adjustment costs alleged necessary to develop the remainder as a result of the take. Commissioners valued the land taken at $356,165 and the damage to the residue at $68,740. WAMMCO’s excluded evidence was testimony from a civil engineer and a real estate appraiser that to develop the property in accordance with its highest and best use, both off-site and on-site roads would have to be acquired and built, and new sanitary sewer service improvements made, all of which were unnecessary prior to the taking. Between the increased development costs and reduction in value of the residue, the total damage was the $2,414,042. Supreme Court affirmed. Adjustment costs, also known as increased development costs, are those costs necessary to adjust the property to the changed conditions caused by the taking. Those costs are relevant to determine the decrease in market value of the residue as a result of the taking, but such costs are not the measure of damages and cannot be recovered specifically. They are admissible as a factor in evaluating the difference in fair market value of the remainder immediately before and after the take. As the development of the residue was contingent on off-site improvements beyond WAMMCO’s control, the evidence was too remote and speculative, and therefore inadmissible.
Dissent by Justice Stephenson, with Chief Justice Carrico and Retired Justice Cochran, stating the trial court erred in excluding the evidence, as it was not speculative, but presented a real and present potential use in light of the existing conditions.
Summary prepared by Judge Jonathan Apgar, 23rd Judicial Circuit in Virginia, for the William & Mary Property Rights Project, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, William & Mary ©2019.
Back to Case Finder Main Page
Volume One Indexes:
To Case Name Index
To Topic Index
To Date Index
To Code Section Index