Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court reviews an eminent-domain valuation involving property taken by the City of Hartford in connection with redevelopment plans and construction of a minor league baseball stadium. The court upholds the trial court’s use of the assemblage doctrine and its valuation of the property at $4.81 million, concluding that assemblage for redevelopment was reasonably probable absent condemnation. The court agrees with the city, however, that the trial court exceeded its authority in awarding interest at a 7.22 percent rate.
Holdings
- In determining just compensation, a court may consider an assemblage-based highest and best use when integrated use with other parcels would have been reasonably probable in the absence of condemnation.
- The evidence supported the trial court's finding that assemblage of the defendants' parcels with adjoining city-owned parcels for redevelopment was reasonably probable even in the absence of condemnation.
- When the judgment of compensation does not set an interest rate, the default rate prescribed by General Statutes § 37-3c applies; the trial court lacks authority to select a different rate after judgment.
- Because the trial court improperly selected the 7.22 percent interest rate, it also improperly awarded offer-of-compromise interest calculated on the resulting total award.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly valued the condemned property based on the doctrine of assemblage without adequately considering whether assemblage would have occurred in the absence of condemnation.
- Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that assemblage with adjoining city-owned parcels for redevelopment was reasonably probable and therefore affected the property's fair market value.
- Whether General Statutes § 37-3c permitted the trial court to set a nondefault interest rate after entering the judgment of compensation.
- Whether the defendants were entitled to offer-of-compromise interest based on the compensation award plus the improperly selected interest rate.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (25)
- Burbank v. Board of Education, 299 Conn. 833, 11 A.3d 658 (2011)(followed)
- Middlebury v. Connecticut Siting Council, 326 Conn. 40, 161 A.3d 537 (2017)(followed)
- Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 317 Conn. 357, 119 A.3d 462 (2015)(followed)
- Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55, 931 A.2d 237 (2007)(followed)
- Robinson v. Westport, 222 Conn. 402, 610 A.2d 611 (1992)(followed)
- Commissioner of Transportation v. Towpath Associates, 255 Conn. 529, 767 A.2d 1169 (2001)(followed)
- Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance, Inc. v. ATC Partnership, 256 Conn. 813, 776 A.2d 1068 (2001)(followed)
- DeNunzio v. DeNunzio, 320 Conn. 178, 128 A.3d 901 (2016)(followed)
- Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 301 Conn. 1, 17 A.3d 1013 (2011)(followed)
- Greene v. Burns, 221 Conn. 736, 607 A.2d 402 (1992)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…