Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

478 [256 ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Harold C. JENSEN et al 73-286 508 S.W. 2d 737 Opinion delivered April 29, 1974 [Rehearing denied June 3, 19741 1. EN/ DENCE EXPERT OPINION FACTS FORMING BASIS OF OPINION. An expert's valuation, upon cross-examination, must demonstrate a foundation in fact or a reasonable and fair basis rather than mere surmise. 2. EMINENT DOMAIN VALUE OF PROPERTY REASONABLENESS OF DEPRECIATION. Expert's depreciation of 15% on all improvements included in the taking held arbitrary where the improvements varied in age as well as type and condition, the value of each item was separately established by the expert, and he failed to justify upon cross-exainination the reasonableness of his method of depreciation. Appeal from White Circuit Court, John Anderson, Judge; reversed and remanded. Thomas B. Keys and Philip N. Gowan, for appellant. Corner Boyett, Jr. and Dale Price, for appellee. FRANK HOLT, Justice. This appeal results from an eminent domain action in which appellant moved to strike the testimony of appellees' expert value witness, Terrell Huff. Appellant's motion to strike, inter alia, reads: Plaintiff [appellant] further moves to strike that portion of his testimony in which he values the improvements on the farm as to depreciated values because it was arbitrarily based on 15% depreciation on property and improvements where the proof shows that some of the improvements and equipment were older than others. THE COURT: Overruled. The expert's valuation, upon cross-examination, must demonstrate a foundation in fact or a reasonable and fair basis rather than mere surrn-ise. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n. v. Jensen, 253 Ark. 795, 489 S.W. 2d 5 (1973), Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n. v. Steen, 253 Ark. 910, 489 S.W. 2d 781 (1973), Ark. La. Gas v. Hardgrave, 252 Ark. 257, 478 S.W. 2d 772 (1972), and Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n. v. Carruthers, 246 Ark.
ARK.] ARK. STATE HWY. COMM ' N V. JENSEN 479 1035, 441 S.W. 2d 84 (1969). We must agree with appellant's objection as to the arbitrariness of the expert's depreciation of 15% on all improvements which were included in the taking. The improvements involved were varieda potato house, ironclad building, machine shed, dairy barn, two dwellings, three wells, three pumps, and another dwelling used for storage. On cross-examination the witness testified that after determining the replacement value on each improvement, these figures were added and a straight 15% depreciation was taken by him on their total value. Although we are sensitive to the difficulties in determining depreciation, we cannot approve of this method as a precedent for it obviously has no fair and reasonable basis. Appellees cite no authority for the method so used. Some of the improvements varied in age as well as type and condition. Appellees' witness, on cross-examination, testified that "I did not depreciate each building as I worked it out. Some of these buildings would have a higher depreciation and some a lower depreciation." The value of each item was separately established by the expert value witnessso also should the depreciation as to each item. The burden was upon appellees' expert witness to justify, upon cross-examination, the reasonableness of his method of depreciation. We have considered appellant's other two contentions and find them without merit. Reversed and remanded.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.