Toler v. Georgia Dep't of Transp.

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the condemnees' motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence and argument regarding the consideration they paid for an assignment of rights for the mining of kaolin on the condemned land.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On May 3, 2000, the Georgia Department of Transportation “DOT” initiated proceedings to condemn 1.7 acres of land in Wilkinson County the “Property” owned by Charlotte Lord Toler, Ray E. Toler, and William T. Toler the “Tolers”. The Tolers appealed the condemnation and demanded a jury trial. They later asserted a claim for business losses arising out of kaolin production on the land. The matter proceeded to trial over 12 years after the initial taking, and on June 30, 2012, the jury awarded the Tolers $212,135 for “real property taken and damaged,” but awarded them nothing on their business loss claim. The Tolers appeal the portion of the verdict denying them any recovery on the latter claim.

The record shows the Property was part of a larger tract, which was encumbered by a 1991 lease agreement the “Lease” under which the Tolers granted J. M. Huber Corporation “Huber” the right to mine kaolin and other like minerals. Under the Lease terms, Huber was required to pay the Tolers a lump sum of $50,000, along with an earned royalty of $2.07 per ton of mined kaolin, with a periodic cost of living adjustment. Huber had conducted mining on the Property in two separate phases and had paid the Tolers over $1 million under the Lease, but the Property was not being actively mined on the date of the taking. Although originally named as a party to the proceedings, approximately ten years into the litigation, on January 28, 2010, Huber assigned to the Tolers all rights to any condemnation awards to which it was entitled the “Assignment”. It is undisputed that the Tolers did not pay Huber any consideration for the Assignment.

Toler v. Georgia Dep't of Transp.

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the condemnees' motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence and argument regarding the consideration they paid for an assignment of rights for the mining of kaolin on the condemned land.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report