Can post-taking property sales be evidence in Utah eminent domain cases? UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Company Explained

In UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Company, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical evidentiary question in eminent domain litigation: whether evidence of property sales and development occurring after the date of taking can be admitted to help determine fair market value at the time of condemnation.

Background and Facts

UDOT condemned property owned by Boggess-Draper Company in 2009 for a highway widening project. The case lingered in litigation until 2018, during which time Boggess sold its remaining property in 2016, and the property was subsequently developed into two car dealerships. Before trial, Boggess successfully moved to exclude evidence of the 2016 sale and development, arguing it was categorically irrelevant to determining the property’s 2009 value. The district court granted the motion based on a blanket rule that post-valuation-date evidence could not be used to prove severance damages.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary questions: first, whether Utah Code sections 78B-6-511 and -512 create a categorical bar against admitting evidence of property transactions occurring after the date of taking; and second, whether attorney fees constitute constitutionally required just compensation under article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court reversed the exclusion of post-valuation evidence, finding no statutory or case law support for a categorical rule barring such evidence. While compensation must be measured at the date of taking based on market value, the court held that post-taking developments may be relevant under Utah Rule of Evidence 401 if they help assess development potential that existed at the valuation date. Such evidence can “confirm or undermine the expectations, as of the date of taking, of a willing buyer.” However, the court emphasized this evidence is not conclusive and remains subject to Rule 403 balancing. On the constitutional question, the court affirmed that attorney fees are not part of constitutionally required just compensation.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts eminent domain litigation strategy. Practitioners can no longer rely on blanket motions to exclude post-taking evidence but must engage in case-specific relevance analysis. When such evidence relates to development potential that existed at the taking date, it may be admissible to test expert opinions and valuation assumptions, subject to the trial court’s Rule 403 discretion.