Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Hans Ottinot, Esq., City Attorney June 10, 2015 Page 3 on improper and speculative opinion evidence; and 4. Motion in Limine and Request for Daubert Hearing as to Respondent's after valuation methodology. In January, 2015 following the deposition of the City's expert witness on the record ownership of the Upland Parcels, Respondent's counsel withdrew and conceded to the City's position that Respondent did not own Parcel 0208. Respondent further agreed that • such parcel would not be considered by its witnesses for purposes of establishing value or compensation in the pending jury trial scheduled for June 1, 2015. Then, in the two weeks leading up to the jury trial, Respondent suddenly conceded not only his ownership claim to the other upland parcel ( Parcel 0206), but also that he did not intend to present evidence to the jury that (a) the parent tract was anything other than the submerged land parcel and (b) valuation of the submerged land parcel was based on a highest and best use conclusion for development with 144 condominium units and (c) any opinion evidence concerning the subject property's valuation, after the take, on the basis of its Transferable Development Rights. It was only on June 1, 2015, the first day of trial, that Respondent announced its total compensation claim for the taking of Parcel A was limited to$855,000. The City's successful legal challenges to Respondent's claims, as outlined above, yielded a reduction in the economic risks to the City at trial by 85 percent, that is, from $5.8 million to $885,000. The jury selection in this case reflected both the complexity and substantial risks that condemning authorities accept in litigating these types of case before a jury, primarily because of the public's visceral reaction to governmental takings of private property. You will recall that I expended over three hours in jury selection, primarily engaged in securing legal cause challenges (as opposed to peremptory challenges) to the first jury panel of 25 members. The court was required to excuse 15 of the 25 panel members solely due to a legal cause challenge, which I successfully set up during the selection process. This, again, was not easy but was crucial to mitigating the risks associated with having members on the jury who concurred with the jury pool's general sentiment that government should pay more than the fair market value for taking private property. Despite the elimination of 15 of those members and engaging in a second jury selection process, the jury panel ultimately selected still contained folks who were had expressed the same anti-government sentiment. Because both parties were limited to 3 peremptory challenges this simply could not be avoided. You will also recall we lost two panel members during the jury trial who we believed favored the City's position. They were replaced by alternate jurors. The first alternate had earlier expressed her concern that people's who property had been taken by the government for building roads should be adequately compensated. The second alternate was a lawyer who ultimately was the juror foreperson. The jury in this case, like most, wanted to give the property owner money for the taking of