Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds Real Estate Appraisal Testimony

The Mississippi Supreme Court has issued an opinion upholding the testimony of an appraiser in an eminent domain case. The parties' appraisers agreed on the appropriate methodology (comparable sales), but disagreed on how to categorize the property (and thus on what comparable sales to consult). The plaintiffs' appraiser thought the property's highest and best use was industrial or commercial; the defendants' appraiser thought it was residential, institutional, and/or agricultural. The trial court sided with the defendants and directed the plaintiffs' appraiser not to base his testimony on industrial or commercial uses. In response, the expert abandoned reliance on industrial or commercial comparables in his testimony, but the trial court permitted him to offer an ultimate opinon on the value per acre that remained unchanged. The state's high court affirmed, citing the discretion vested in the trial court, and noting that the trial court's orders did not attempt to dictate the appraiser's ultimate valuation, but merely proscribed testimonial reliance on commercial or industrial uses. See Tunica County v. Matthews, No. 2004-CA-02352-SCT (Miss. Apr. 13, 2006).