Equitrans, L.P. v. 0.56 Acres More or Less of Permanent Easement Located in Marion County, West Virginia et al
Filing
78
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 51 Motion in Limine to Preclude Opinion Testimony is GRANTED IN PART AS FRAMED AND DENIED IN PART; 52 Motion in Limine to Preclude E vidence of the Purchase Price for Other Properties is DENIED AS FRAMED; 53 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Damage to Defendants' Property Allegedly Caused by Neighboring Well Pad is GRANTED; 54 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenc e that the Value of the Property Exceeds $40,000 is GRANTED AS FRAMED; 55 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of the Jury's Finding of Breach of Contract or Trespass in the Prior Action is DEFERRED; and 56 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Alleged Criminal Conduct of Brandon Wise is DEFERRED. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 7/22/16. (cnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
EQUITRANS, L.P.,
a Pennsylvania
limited partnership,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:15CV106
(STAMP)
0.56 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF
PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATED IN
MARION COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA,
JEFFERY J. MOORE and
SANDRA J. MOORE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
The plaintiff, Equitrans, L.P. (“Equitrans”), has filed six
motions in limine to preclude the defendants (“the Moores”) from
presenting certain evidence.
The trial in this civil action is
scheduled to commence on August 9, 2016.
This Court will address
those motions in limine and set forth its findings, as discussed
below.1
1.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Opinion Testimony (ECF No. 51) -
GRANTED IN PART AS FRAMED AND DENIED IN PART.
Equitrans
asks
this
Court
to
preclude
the
Moores
from
providing any opinion testimony regarding the value of the 0.56
acres of permanent easement to be condemned (“the subject right-of-
1
For a more thorough background of this civil action, see ECF
Nos. 15, and 77.
way”)2
because
it
is
based
on
irrelevant
considerations.
Specifically, Equitrans argues that the Moores base their opinions
upon allegations that Equitrans is a “terrible neighbor[],” that a
“neighboring well pad caused frac water to run onto the Moores’
property and endanger their cattle,” that “Equitrans has moved
their pipeline off of neighboring land onto the Moores’ property
without telling the Moores,” and that Equitrans has “treated the
Moores rudely and unprofessional[ly].”
ECF No. 48-1 at 4.
The
Moores argue that under West Virginia law a landowner’s opinion
regarding the value of his property is admissible to prove the fair
market value in a condemnation action.
Under West Virginia law, “a landowner’s opinion concerning the
value of his land” is admissible despite its being “so far affected
by bias that it amounts to little more than a definite statement of
the maximum figure in contention.”
W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Div.
of Highways v. W. Pocahontas Props., L.P., 777 S.E.2d 619, 642 (W.
Va. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“If . . . the
landowner is permitted to testify concerning a fairly complex
subject, namely the value of his own property, then it follows
ineluctably that the methodology by which he arrives at his opinion
is indispensable to assigning proper weight to his opinion.”
2
W.
For a detailed description, maps, and photographs of the
subject right-of-way, see ECF Nos. 73, 73-1, 73-2, 73-3.
2
Va. Dep’t of Highways v. Sickles, 242 S.E.2d 567, 570 (W. Va.
1978).
“However, the authorization for a landowner to testify is not
merely the granting of permission to the litigants to act out and
testify to grossly inflated value.”
W. Pocahontas, 777 S.E.2d at
637 (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Put simply, a property
owner may not base his opinion solely upon” forms of compensation
that the owner is not entitled to.
Id.
Thus, the property owner’s
opinion must be based on factors relevant to the fair market value
of the property. See Cincinnati Gas Transp. Co. v. Wilson, 73 S.E.
306, 309 (W. Va. 1911) (concluding that “a witness may not express
his mere naked opinion . . . , but must state his opinion of the
value
of
the
land
before
and
after
the
construction
of
the
railroad, in connection with the facts and circumstances relative
to
the
land
flowing
from
the
construction
of
the
railroad”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
“[A]ny
factor
that
a
reasonable
buyer
or
seller
would
typically consider should be included in an analysis of fair market
value.”
W. Pocahontas, 777 S.E.2d at 631.
Thus, the Moores may
provide their opinion testimony regarding the value of the right of
way so long as those opinions are based on factors relevant to the
valuation of property under West Virginia law.
However, the
Moores’ allegations that Equitrans is a “terrible neighbor” are
irrelevant to the market value of the subject right-of-way.
3
Thus,
the Moores’ opinion testimony is excluded to the extent that it is
based on allegations that Equitrans is a “terrible neighbor[],”
that a “neighboring well pad caused frac water to run onto the
Moores’ property and endanger their cattle,” that “Equitrans has
moved their pipeline off of neighboring land onto the Moores’
property without telling the Moores,” and that Equitrans has
“treated the Moores rudely and unprofessional[ly].”
ECF No. 48-1
at 4.
2.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of the Purchase Price
for Other Properties (ECF No. 52) - DENIED AS FRAMED.
Equitrans asks this Court to preclude any evidence of “the
purchase
price
including
Virginia.”
other
ECF
that
Equitrans
has
properties
located
No.
3.
paid
52
at
in
for
other
Marion
Equitrans
properties
County,
argues
that
West
these
properties have “no tendency to prove the fair market value of the
Defendants’ particular property” because they are not comparable
“in size, location, use[,] or topography.”
ECF No. 52 at 3-4.
In
response to Equitrans’ motions in limine, the Moores presented
several pipeline right-of-way agreements between Equitrans and
other property owners, which they argue are relevant because they
represent bona fide purchases of comparable property rights.
See
ECF Nos. 59-2, 59-3, 59-4, 59-5, 59-6.
“Arm’s length transactions in lands in the vicinity of and
comparable to the land under appraisement, reasonably near the time
4
of acquisition, are the best evidence of market value, but not to
the extent of exclusion of other relevant evidence of value.”
W.
Pocahontas Props., 777 S.E.2d at 637. Thus, to the extent that the
right-of-way sales the Moores seek to introduce as evidence are
comparable to the subject right-of-way, those sales are relevant to
the fair market value of the subject right-of-way.
Accordingly,
Equitrans’ motion is denied to the extent that the right-of-way
sales the Moores seek to introduce as evidence involve properties
that are comparable to the subject right-of-way.
3.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Damage to Defendants’
Property Allegedly Caused by Neighboring Well Pad (ECF No. 53) GRANTED.
Equitrans argues that this Court should preclude any evidence
that a well pad on property neighboring the Moores’ property leaked
“frac water” on to the Moores’ property and damaged it.
Equitrans
argues that this evidence is irrelevant to a determination of the
value of the subject right-of-way, and that the well pad is owned
and operated by an entity that is not a party to this action.
In
response, the Moores argue that the alleged damage has devalued
their
property,
and
that
the
conduct
of
neighbors
affecting
property value is relevant to a determination of the fair market
value of condemned property.
As discussed above, evidence that a neighboring well pad,
operated by an entity related to Equitrans, caused damaged to the
5
Moores’ property is not relevant to a determination of the value of
the subject right-of-way. It may be relevant to a determination of
the value of the entirety of the Moores’ property in that it tends
to diminish its value.
However, the value of the Moores’ property
as a whole is irrelevant here, especially where the parties have
stipulated that the taking will cause no damage to the residue.
Further, even if the evidence is relevant to valuing the subject
right-of-way, its probative value to that effect is minimal and it
creates a high risk of causing unfair prejudice to Equitrans and of
confusing the jury.
Thus, assuming the evidence is relevant, it
should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice and misleading the jury.
Accordingly, Equitrans’ motion
in limine is granted.
4.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence that the Value of the
Property Exceeds $40,000 (ECF No. 54) - GRANTED AS FRAMED.
Equitrans
asks
this
Court
to
preclude
the
Moores
from
presenting evidence that the value of the subject right-of-way
exceeds $40,000 because the Moores stated in the responses to
interrogatories
and
property at $40,000.
deposition
testimony
that
they
value
the
The Moores argue that evidence regarding
other pipeline rights-of-way Equitrans has purchased for more than
$40,000 are admissible as comparable sales and that the Moores
themselves will “only . . . testify that they value the property at
6
$40,000.”
ECF No. 62 at 3.
Thus, the Moores concede that they
will not personally testify to a valuation of the subject right-ofway exceeding $40,000.
Accordingly, Equitrans’ motion is granted
to the extent that the Moores seek to testify that in their
opinions the subject right-of-way is valued at more than $40,000.
Further,
in
accordance
with
this
Court’s
ruling
regarding
Equitrans’ motion in limine to preclude evidence of the purchase
price of other properties, any evidence of those purchases are
relevant to the extent that those properties are comparable to the
subject right-of-way.
5.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of the Jury’s Finding of
Breach of Contract or Trespass in the Prior Action (ECF No. 55) DEFERRED.
Equitrans
asks
this
Court
to
preclude
the
Moores
from
presenting evidence regarding the jury’s verdict in the prior
action for breach of contract and trespass.
In response, the
Moores argue that the prior verdict is relevant to a determination
of when the taking occurred.
This Court believes that the parties
may fashion a stipulation regarding this evidence and how the
procedural posture of this civil action will be presented to the
jury, and this Court believes it will be beneficial for the parties
to discuss this issue with this Court at the scheduled pretrial
hearing.
Accordingly, this Court defers ruling on Equitrans’
motion at this time.
7
6.
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Alleged Criminal
Conduct of Brandon Wise (ECF No. 56) - DEFERRED
Equitrans
asks
this
Court
to
preclude
the
Moores
from
introducing any evidence regarding alleged criminal conduct of
Brandon Wise or of his reprimand by the West Virginia Real Estate
Appraiser
Licensing
and
Certification
Board.
Specifically,
Equitrans argues that this evidence may only be admissible to
attack Brandon Wise’s character for truthfulness, but Brandon
Wise’s character for truthfulness will not be at issue because
Equitrans does not intend to call him as a witness.
In response,
the Moores argue that Brandon Wise significantly contributed to
Equitrans’ expert appraisal report, and that this evidence is
relevant to impeach him to the extent that he contributed to the
report. Because it is unclear whether Brandon Wise will testify at
trial, this Court believes it will be beneficial for the parties to
discuss this issue with this Court at the scheduled pretrial
hearing.
Accordingly, this Court defers ruling on Equitrans’
motion at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
8
DATED:
July 22, 2016
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?