From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. City

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 27, 2007
No. 05-06-01114-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 27, 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-06-01114-CV

Opinion Filed July 27, 2007.

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1-04-915.

Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and FITZGERALD.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Lehman Harris appeals the trial court's judgment in this condemnation case. Harris complains specifically that the trial court instructed the jury valuing Harris's property not to consider Aany enhancement to the value of the property that resulted from the condemnation project itself for which the property was taken. We conclude the dispositive issue before us is clearly settled in law. Accordingly, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4. The factual nature of this case, as well as its procedural history, pleadings, and evidence are known to the parties. Therefore, we do not recount these matters. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Harris objected to the Aenhancement instruction before it was submitted to the jury; the trial court overruled his objection. We review the trial court's submission of jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex. 1995).

The compensation for land taken by eminent domain is measured by the market value of the land at the time of the taking. City of Fort Worth v. Corbin, 504 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Tex. 1974). That value may not include any enhancement occasioned by the condemnation project itself. Barshop v. City of Houston, 442 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex. 1969). This rule against enhancement of value because of the condemnation project itself is both well-settled and recently confirmed. See Morrow v. St. Louis, Atchison Topeka Ry. Co., 81 Tex. 405, 17 S.W. 44 (1891); see also Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Tex. 2002). Harris complains that the rule unfairly limits a landowner's compensation. But the Supreme Court of Texas has concluded the purpose of the judicial process in terms of condemnation is to make the landowner whole. Exxon Pipeline, 88 S.W.3d at 628. And, to that end, the court has reasoned that compensation for value enhanced by the condemnation project itself would place the landowner in a better position than he would have enjoyed had there been no condemnation. Id. We agree.

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Harris's objection to the enhancement instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.


Summaries of

Harris v. City

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 27, 2007
No. 05-06-01114-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 27, 2007)
Case details for

Harris v. City

Case Details

Full title:LEHMAN HARRIS, Appellant v. THE CITY OF ROCKWALL, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jul 27, 2007

Citations

No. 05-06-01114-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 27, 2007)