Home Table of Contents

AMI 2011 Evidence of Sales and Leases of Comparable Properties

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 2011
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
November 2021 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 20. Eminent Domain
AMI 2011 Evidence of Sales and Leases of Comparable Properties
Evidence has been received as to [sales][and][leases] of allegedly comparable properties in the vicinity and in other areas. Bona fide [sales][and][leases] of comparable properties made within a reasonable time of the date of taking of the property involved may be considered by you in determining the fair market value at the time of taking. Such evidence may be considered to the extent you find it assists in determining fair market value.
Use this instruction only if evidence of sales or leases of comparable properties has been received.
This instruction is modeled after O'Malley, Grenig and Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 154:61 (6th ed.), and it is based on Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Roberts, 246 Ark. 1216, 441 S.W.2d 808 (1969). See also Ark. State Highway Comm'n v. Alvin Samuel Gin Co., 256 Ark. 669, 510 S.W.2d 65 (1974).
Factors of similarity include “location, size and sale price; conditions surrounding the sale of the property, such as the date and character of the sale; business and residential advantages or disadvantages; [and] unimproved, improved, or developed land.” See Ark. State Highway Comm'n v. Witkowski, 236 Ark. 66, 69, 364 S.W.2d 309, 311 (1963).
The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that it is error for the trial court to allow evidence of a condemnor's court deposit or appraisal of a nearby tract of land as proof of valuation in a condemnation action because such “sales” are not fair criteria of value for purposes of showing comparable sales in determining just compensation due the landowner. Ark. State Highway Comm'n v. Barker, 326 Ark. 403, 406, 931 S.W.2d 138, 140 (1996). The court has stated that the amount a condemning party has paid for property is not competent evidence of the value in any case, whether in a proceeding by the same condemning party, or in other cases, because such sales are not voluntary transactions and are in the nature of a compromise. Id. (citing Yonts v. Public Serv. Co. of Ark., 179 Ark. 695, 17 S.W.2d 886 (1929)). See also GSS, LLC v. Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., 2014 Ark. 144, 432 S.W.3d 583 (2014) (citing Barker and Yonts with approval).
End of Document