Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Jessie H. Reginelli

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION III

CA04-579

February 16, 2005

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AN APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN

COMMISSION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLANT [CIV2000-17]

V. HON. GRAHAM PARTLOW, JUDGE

JESSIE H. REGINELLI

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge

This is an eminent domain case, involving the taking of a half-acre tract of land in Marion, Arkansas, hereinafter designated as Tract 54. The Arkansas State Highway Commission appeals from the grant of a motion for new trial in favor of appellee, Jessie Reginelli. The jury returned a verdict for $8100, although no property valuation that low was presented at trial. Appellee subsequently filed a motion for a new trial based on the inadequacy of the verdict. The trial court granted appellee's motion. Appellant now argues that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not within the value range of the evidence submitted at trial. We affirm because appellant failed to bring up a record sufficient for review.

Because we affirm on procedural grounds, only a brief recitation of facts is necessary. The property involved, approximately .54 acres, was commercial frontage property adjoining 77th Street, a main north-south artery in Marion. On January 12, 2000, appellant filed a complaint and a declaration of taking, requesting that Tract 54 be condemned and that temporary construction easements be imposed on Tracts 54E1 and 54E2. Attached to the declaration of taking was appellant's estimate of just compensation for frontage property: Tract 54, $11,200; Tract 54E1, $100; and Tract 54E2, $100, for a total of $11,400.1 Appellee responded, requesting that a jury be empaneled to determined the value of just compensation.

The trial court entered an order of possession on January 31, 2000, to which appellee responded, again requesting a jury trial, which was held on October 7, 2003. Three witnesses testified as to the value of the property taken. The jury returned a verdict for $8100. The trial court noted in its judgment that appellant had deposited $11,400 with the court as its estimate of just compensation, and that the same amount had been withdrawn by appellee. Because the jury award was for $8100, the trial court awarded appellant $3300, the difference between the amount deposited by appellant and the amount awarded by the jury.2

Appellee thereafter filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury made an error in the assessment in the amount of recovery, because no substantial evidence supported an award of a judgment for less than $11,400, which was the lowest estimate and was the amount that appellant deposited into the court as its estimate of just compensation. The matter was presented to the trial court on January 28, 2004, based upon the pleadings, the record, and the arguments of counsel. The trial court subsequently entered an order granting appellee's motion based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made from the bench, which it incorporated into the written order. This appeal followed.

We must summarily affirm because the record does not contain the proceedings from the January 28 hearing on appellee's motion for a new trial. Because appellant failed to produce a record of the January 28 proceedings, and because the trial court only incorporated by reference its oral findings into its written order, there is no way for us to know the trial court's rationale for granting appellee's motion. It is well-settled that is it is the appellant's burden to bring up a record demonstrating that reversal is warranted. Simmons First Bank of Arkansas v. Bob Callahan Servs., Inc., 340 Ark. 692, 13 S.W.3d 570 (2000); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8). In the absence of a complete record on appeal, we are compelled to summarily affirm the trial court's order. Larry v. Grady Sch. Dist., 82 Ark. App. 185, 119 S.W.3d 528 (2003).

Affirmed.

Robbins and Roaf, JJ., agree.

1 The value of these easements is not at issue in this case.

2 Appellee cross-appeals on her own behalf and as the representative of her father, James Reginelli, deceased, arguing that the trial court should have granted a new trial based on the fact that a note found in the jury's room showed the jury deducted appellant's deposit on determining the amount of its verdict. Because we affirm on procedural grounds, we do not address appellee's cross-appeal.