Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs
Castellanos v. Harris County, Texas and City of Baytown, Texas., No. 01-20-00414-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct 7, 2021) (mem. op.).
In this appeal from a trial court’s judgment in a condemnation case, the First Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed the trial court’s judgment because there was sufficient evidence to support the amount in their judgment as it related to the condemned property.
The plaintiffs’ property was the subject of a condemnation case including a road easement, water line easement, a temporary construction easement, and damages for the remainder of the project. After the trial court issued its judgment, the plaintiffs appealed arguing that the amount of compensation in the judgment should have been higher and that their suggested jury instruction regarding compensation to make changes to the home post-condemnation should have been given.
The Texas Constitution requires adequate compensation to any property owner whose property is taken by a governmental entity. Tex. Const. art. I, § 17(a). This value is determined by fair market value on the date of the taking which can take into account both the current use and the highest and best use. See Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580, 611 (Tex. 2016). When only a portion of the property is taken both the value of what is taken and the damages to the remainder are both used to determine compensation. Morello v. Seaway Crude Pipeline Co., LLC, 585 S.W.3d 1, 29–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). In addition, to complain about a jury instruction on appeal, the plaintiff needs to make such objection at the trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 274; Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. To properly bring a claim that a ground of recovery or defense was not considered, the avenue would have been a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion to disregard a jury finding. Those motions were not filed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial jury’s compensation amount because the plaintiffs did not prove that the evidence presented at trial required a different fair market value for the property and did not properly object to the lack of award for changes to the house post-condemnation.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment because the plaintiffs failed to conclusively establish that the amount of compensation was insufficient.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Guerra, and Farris. Opinion by Justice Kelly.