The trial court did not err in stating the contentions of the parties. The trial court's statement of the contentions of the parties need not be of equal length, Durham v. Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231, although, in the present case, they were approximately the same length. We find the charge to be fair and impartial, and in compliance with G.S. 1-180.

In addition, the defendant says that the court did not give "equal stress" to defendant's contentions because the defendant's contentions were not equal in length with the plaintiff's contentions. It is not required that the statement of contentions be of equal length. Durham v. Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231 (1967). We have reviewed the charge of the court, and no prejudicial error is made to appear.

In condemnation proceedings, where there are several separately owned interests in the condemned property, a proper method for determining compensation to be paid the holder of each interest is, first, to determine the value of the property taken, as a whole, and then apportion the award among the several claimants. G.S. 136-117; Durham v. Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231; Barnes v. Highway Commission, 257 N.C. 507, 126 S.E.2d 732; 27 AM. JUR.2d, Eminent Domain, 247. The taker of the property, thus having its total liability determined, is not affected by or interested in the division of the award by the court. [7, 8] Although there is authority to the contrary (See: State v. Independent School District No. 31, 266 Minn. 85, 123 N.W.2d 121), the weight of authority supports the view that if, at the time of the taking of both the fee simple determinable estate and the possibility of reverter, the event which would otherwise have terminated the fee simple determinable estate is not a probability for the near future, the owner of the fee simple determinable estate is entitled to the full award of compensation for the taking, the possibility of reverter being considered of no value. United States v. 16 Acres of Land, 47 F. Supp. 603 (D.C. Mass.); United States v. 1119.15 Acres of Land, 44 F. Supp. 449 (D.C. Ill.); State v. Cooper, 24 N.J. 261, 131 A.2d 7

"As a consequence, the owner is required to account to his lessee for the value of his lease." Durham v. Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 635, 155 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1967). Ordinarily the value of a lease is the difference between the rental value of the unexpired term and the rent reserved in the lease — 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain 143 (b) (1965). If a forfeited lease is worth nothing more than the stipulated rent, the lessee has sustained no damage. He suffers a loss only when his lease is worth more than the rent he pays, that is, only when his lease is a bargain.

It is not required that the statement of contentions be of equal length. Durham v. Realty Company, 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231 (1967); Wheeler v. Denton, 9 N.C. App. 167, 175 S.E.2d 769 (1970). After a careful review of the challenged instructions, we conclude that the court did not give unequal stress to the contentions of either party in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 51 (a).

In this case, the City and County condemned all interests in the subject property, including those of MPL and DHS. As a consequence, it was constitutionally obligated to pay whatever fair market value the subject property had on August 25, 1969, with that amount to be allocated among the various interests entitled thereto. See City of Durham v. Eastern Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231 (1967). As part of the process of determining fair market value, this court has held that evidence of sums expended in the development of property to a use more valuable than that to which it was actually put at the time of taking is admissible to show enhancement of its value.

1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence 30 (1982). Cf. Durham v. Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231 (1967). For the same reason, the trial judge properly denied defendant's motion for mistrial.

Usually, a lessee has standing to litigate its portion of the total award upon condemnation. See Durham v. Realty Co., 270 N.C. 631, 155 S.E.2d 231 (1967). However, the interest of a month-to-month tenant generally merits no compensation due to the difficulty of calculating its portion of an award.

¶ 22 Because the tenant of a property is considered an "owner of [the] property in the constitutional sense," City of Durham v. Eastern Realty Co. , 270 N.C. 631, 634, 155 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1967), "[w]hen condemned land is subject to a leasehold estate the tenant is entitled to share in the award[.]" Ross v. Perry , 281 N.C. 570, 576, 189 S.E.2d 226, 229 (1972).