The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has upheld a property owner’s use of a land planner’s expert report in a challenge to a condemnation.

In Forty Foot Farms v. PA Turnpike Commission, the Commission filed a declaration of taking and condemned approximately 2.5 acres of Forty Foot’s property for use in the reconstruction of a portion of the turnpike’s Northeast Extension. This taking adversely impacted Forty Foot’s plans of to develop commercial uses on the property.

Forty Foot and the Commission agreed to resolve the matter with a jury trial and filed a number of pre-trial motions with the trial court.

The Commission asked the trial judge to preclude a land planning report prepared by Forty Foot’s expert and then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Forty Foot’s appraisal report had relied upon the opinions rendered by the land planner. The trial court granted both motions and Forty Foot appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court noted that a condemnee may offer evidence regarding a property’s highest and best use, unless that evidence is based on speculation or conjecture. Here, the Commonwealth Court noted that Forty Foot’s land planner based his conclusions on the particulars of the property and his interpretation of the relevant township ordinances. The court thus concluded that his report was not rooted in speculation, but rather upon well-reasoned determinations and opinions of the type that should be considered and weighed by the factfinder.

As a result, the Commonwealth Court determined that the trial court erred in granting both of these motions and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Forty Foot was represented in this appeal by attorneys in Fox Rothschild’s Eminent Domain/Condemnation Group. For more information about the Commonwealth Court’s holdings in this case, or our condemnation practice, please feel free to contact Rob Gundlach at 215-918-3636 or rgundlach@Foxrothschild.com.