No. 70958-5-1 COURT of APPEALS STATE of WASHINGTON
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 70958-5-1 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION I Airport Investment COMPANY, INC., Appellant, vs. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, dba SOUND TRANSIT, et aI., Respondent. SOUND TRANSIT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Marisa Velling Lindell, WSBA# 18201 Matthew R. Hansen, WSBA# 36631 Estera Gordon, WSBA# 12655 GRAHAM & DUNN PC Pier 70 2801 Alaskan Way ~ Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121-1128 (206) 624-8300 Attorneys for Respondent Sound Transit TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 RESTATEMENT OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO AIRPORT INVESTMENT'S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ....................................... 2 A. Evidence of Franchise Requirements and Business Practices ............................................................................... 2 B. Airport Investment's Value Opinion Based on Lamb Appraisal .............................................................................. 3 C. Attorney Fees and Costs ...................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................... 5 A. The Airport Investment Property ......................................... 5 B. Sound Transit's Taking: the Two Easements ........ ............... 6 C. The Appraisals ................................................................... 10 D. Pretrial Procedure: Discovery and Continuance ................ 13 E. Sound Transit's 3D-Day Offer ........................................... 15 F. Motions in Limine .............................................................. 16 G. At Trial: Franchise Requirements and Business Practices .............................................................. 19 H. At Trial: Sandra Oh Value Opinion and Lamb Appraisal ............................................................................ 20 1. At Trial: Instructions, Argument, and Verdict ................... 22 1. Airport Investment's Post-Trial Motion for Fees and Costs ............................................................................ 23 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 24 A. Excluding Evidence of Franchise Requirements and Business Practices Was Not an Abuse ofDiscretion........ .24 1. Alleged Business Losses and Consequential Danlages Are Not Compensable in Eminent Domain................................................................... 25 2. The Owner's Specific Use and Particular Business Interests Are Not an Appropriate Measure of Market Value under Washington Law................... 29 3. The Trial Court Had Discretion to Exclude Evidence of Franchise Requirements and Business Practices as Misleading and Prejudicial.. ............... 30 4. Airport Investment Failed to Preserve this Issue for Appeal .............................................................. 31 B. Admitting Airport Investment's Value Opinion Based on the Lamb Appraisal Was Not an Abuse ofDiscretion....... 34 C. Airport Investment Is Not Entitled to Attorney Fees and Costs ............................................................................ 38 1. The Trial Court Correctly Denied Airport Investment's Request for Fees under RCW 8.25.070 .................................................................. 39 2. Airport Investment Is Not Entitled to Fees under RCW 8.25.075 ............................................ .47 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX A: Aerial views of the property and its location (Exs. 36, 70, 37 p.3) APPENDIXB: Easements as overlay to aerial view and in plan view (Exs. 134, 135) 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anstine v. Mc Williams, 24 Wn.2d 230, 163 P.2d 816 (1945) ..................................................... 35 Bellevue v. Kravik, 69 Wn. App. 735,850 P.2d 559 (1993) .......................................... 24,37 Breimon v. General Motors Corp., 8 Wn. App. 747, 509 P.2d 398 (1973) .................................................. 37 Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co. v. True, 62 Wash. 646, 114 P. 515 (1911) .................................................... 26-27 City ofHammond v. Marina Entertainment Complex, Inc., 681 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. App. 1997) ....................................................... 49 Dep't ofPublic Works & Bldgs. v. Lanter, 153 N.E.2d 552, (Ill. 1958) ................................................................... 48 Dep't ofTransp. v. Northern Trust Co., 376 N.E.2d 286 (Ill. App. 1978) ........................................................... 48 Detention ofBedker, 134 Wn. App. 775, 146 P.3d 442 (2006) .............................................. 24 Dupuis v. Chicago & N WR. Y Co., 3 N .E. 720 (Ill. 1885) '" ........... '" ............................................................. 26 Fix v. Tacoma, 171 Wash. 196, 17 P.2d 599 (1933) ..................................................... 27 FKM P 'ship, Ltd. v. Board ofRegents, 255 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2008) ................................................................. 48 Greenwood v. Seattle, 73 Wn.2d 741, 440 P.2d 437 (1968) ..................................................... 28 Independent Asphalt Paving Co. v. Hein, 73 Wash. 127, 131 P. 471 (1913) ......................................................... 37 1ll Kain v. Logan, 79 Wn.2d 524, 487 P.2d 1292 (1971) ................................................... 37 Kern County v. Galatas, 200 Cal. App. 2d 353 (1962) ................................................................ 48 Lemcke v. Funk & Co., 78 Wash. 460, 139 P. 234 (1914) ................................................... 35, 37 Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, 172 Wn. App. 835,292 P.3d 779 (2013) .............................................. 35 Martin v. Port ofSeattle , 64 Wn.2d 309, 391 P.2d 540 (1964) .................................................... 29 Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403 (1878) ................................................................................ 29 Montgomery County v. McQuary, 265 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Misc. 1971) ...................................................... 48 Municipality ofMetro. Seattle v. Kenmore Properties, Inc., 67 Wn.2d 923, 410 P.2d 790 (1966) ..................................................... 43 Olympia Light & Power Co. v. Harris, 58 Wash. 410, 108 P. 940 (1910) ......................................................... 43 Port ofSeattle v. Rio, 16 Wn. App. 718, 559 P.2d 18 (1977) ...................................... .41-42, 46 Renton v. Scott Pacific Terminal, Inc., 9 Wn. App. 364, 512 P.2d 1137 (1973) ................................................ 27 Seattle & Montana Railroad Co. v. Roeder, 30 Wash. 244, 70 P. 498 (1902) ........................................................... 26 Seattle v. Harclaon, 56 Wn.2d 596, 354 P.2d 928 (1960) ..................................................... 37 Seattle, P. A. & L. C. Railway v. Land, 81 Wash. 206, 142 P. 680 (1914) ......................................................... 29 IV Smith v. Seibly, 72 Wn.2d 16,431 P.2d 719 (1967) ....................................................... 32 State v. Basin Development & Sales Co., 53 Wn.2d 201,332 P.2d 245 (1958) ..................................................... 43 State v. Costich, 152 Wn.2d 463,98 P.3d 795 (2004) ............................. 38,40,41,42,46 State v. Cronin, 142 Wn.2d 568,14 P.3d 752 (2000) ..................................................... 31 State v. McDonald, 98 Wn.2d 521, 656 P.2d 1043 (1983) ................................................... 27 State v. Mottman Mercantile Co., 51 Wn.2d 722, 321 P.2d 912 (1958) ..................................................... 29 State v. Paul Bunyan Rifle Club, 132 Wn. App. 85, 130 P.3d 414 (2006) ................................................ 32 State v. Ward, 41 Wn.2d 794, 252 P.2d 279 (1953) ..................................................... 43 State v. Wilson, 6 Wn. App. 443,493 P.2d 1252 (1972) ................................................ 34 Thomas v. French, 99 Wn.2d 95,659 P.2d 1097 (1983) ..................................................... 35 Tomlinson v. Bean, 26 Wn.2d 354,173 P.2d 972 (1946) ..................................................... 32 Tumelson v. Todhunter, 105 Wn.2d 596, 716 P.2d 890 (1986) ................................................... 32 Statutes RCW 8.25.070 ......................................................................... 39-41,42,46 RCW 8.25.075 .......................................................................................... 47 v Rules ER 403 ...................................................................................................... 31 ER408 ................................................................................................ 17,38 ER 801(e) ................... ,.............................................................................. 36 ER 801 (d)(2) ........................................................................................ 34-35 Other Authorities Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition § B-7 .......... 32 Washington Constitution, Art. I, § 16 ....................................................... 27 WPI 150.15 ............................................................................................... 34 WPI 151.05 ............................................................................................... 27 WPI 151.07 ..............................................................................................