Valuation of Condemned Property

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Eminent Domain
4. General Provisions
5. Valuation of Condemned Property

1. When property is condemned under this title or any other title of this Code, the value of the condemned property may be determined through lay or expert testimony and its admissibility shall be addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
2. If any party to a condemnation proceeding seeks to introduce expert testimony as to the issue of just and adequate compensation, Code Section 24-7-702 shall not apply.

(Code 1981, §22-1-14, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 5/HB 1313; Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 38/HB 24.)

Cross references.

- Expert opinion testimony in civil actions, § 24-7-702.

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 1/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as 'The Landowner's Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act.'"

Ga. L. 2006, p. 39, § 25/HB 1313, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall apply to those condemnation proceedings filed on or after February 9, 2006, where title has not vested in the condemning authority unless constitutionally prohibited.

Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101/HB 24, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Act shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after January 1, 2013.

Law reviews.

- For annual survey of evidence law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 151 (2006). For article on 2006 enactment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 157 (2006). For article, "Evidence," see 27 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011). For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Lay witness opinion inadmissible on cost to build bridge.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in excluding, for insufficient foundation, a witness's opinion testimony concerning the cost to build a bridge over a waterway to cure trusts' lost usage after the condemnation of a ford over the waterway because the proffer the trusts made did not demonstrate pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-9-66 a basis upon which the witness could have formed the witness's own opinion on the cost to build the bridge apart from the single estimate the witness received; the trusts did not proffer that the witness obtained any other estimates concerning the cost to construct the bridge, spoke to anyone else about that cost, or possessed or sought to obtain any other information about that cost or about the accuracy of the estimate the witness had received. Martha K. Wayt Trust v. City of Cumming, 306 Ga. App. 790, 702 S.E.2d 915 (2010).

Cited in Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271, 658 S.E.2d 603 (2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Eminent Domain, § 223 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 29A C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 141 et seq.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.