Oxon Hill Recreation Club, Inc. v. Prince George's County

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This Court has long been reluctant to set aside verdicts in condemnation cases for errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence unless the rulings caused substantial injustice, State Roads Comm’n v. Kuenne, 240 Md. 232, 235 , 213 A. 2d 567, 568-69 (1965) and cases there cited. The Court, speaking through Judge Prescott in Hance v. State Roads Comm’n, 221 Md. 164, 176 , 156 A. 2d 644, 650-51 (1959) explained the reason for this: “Such cases usually consume much time in trial, and are expensive in nature. As a rule, they are determined by a myriad of different items of evidence.

The exclusion or admission of small items of evidence of doubtful materiality [is] not likely to be of great importance in the outcome of the case, and most courts refuse to set aside a verdict in cases of this kind, for error in the rulings on questions of evidence, unless, as indicated above, substantial prejudice be shown.” See also 5 Nichols’ Law of Eminent Domain § 18.1 [3] (3d ed. 1975,1977 Supp.). This is a case where we think substantial prejudice was shown. Oxon Hill Recreation Club, Inc. (Oxon Hill) was the owner of some 17 V2 acres in Prince George’s County (the County), improved by a swimming pool, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities for use by its 2200 members. In April, 1976, the County determined to acquire by condemnation some 2V2 acres of Oxon Hill’s tract for the relocation of Tucker Road.

Upon relocation of the road, IIV2 acres of Oxon Hill’s original tract would lie to the west of the road and a 3V2-acre parcel to the east. ¹⁰⁷ When the case came on for trial, Oxon Hill stipulated that the County’s valuation of $12,000.00 per acre was fair and reasonable. At trial, Richard Pierce, the County’s appraiser, testified that the 3V2-acre parcel which was severed would lose 25% of its value, in his opinion, and that total damages would be $39,200.00. 1 Leroy Williams, a witness produced by Oxon Hill, who had not appraised the property to determine value before or after the taking, was of the opinion that the severed parcel would lose 90% of its value, or $37,800.00, which when added to the 2V2 acres taken, resulted in total damages of $67,800.00. 2 Revus Black, president of Oxon Hill, was called as a witness. Oxon Hill attempted to elicit from him an expression of his opinion as to the consequential damages to be sustained by the ll’A-acre parcel which would remain after the taking; an objection to this line of questioning was sustained. Maryland Code (1974) § 12-104 (b) of the Real Property Article provides for the computation of damages in cases involving a partial acquisition: “The damages to be awarded where land, or any part of it, is taken is the fair market value of the part taken, but not less than the actual value of the part taken plus any severance or resulting damages to the remaining land by reason of the taking and of future use by the plaintiff of the part taken.

The severance or resulting damages shall be diminished to the extent of the value of the special (particular) benefits to the remainder arising from the plaintiffs future use of the part taken.” Our cases have held that the measure of damages contemplated by the statute is the difference between fair market value of the whole property immediately before the taking and the fair market value of what is left immediately