Charles McFarland has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2011 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in the practice area of Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
Jeff Joyce, John McFarland, and Charles McFarland were each recognized in H Texas Magazine’s 2010 Houston’s Top Lawyers edition
January 2010 Jeff Joyce is again selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America guide to legal excellence in the United States
September 2009 In jury trial on behalf of national retailer, Charles McFarland recovered over $500,000 for his client as compensation for 31 parking spaces lost as a result of the widening of Texas Avenue in College Station, Texas.
March 2009 Charles McFarland joins Jeff Joyce and twin brother John McFarland to form Joyce, McFarland McFarland LLP
November 2008 Jeff Joyce and John McFarland form Joyce & McFarland LLP
September 2009 Jeff Joyce is again named as a Texas Super Lawyer by Texas Monthly magazine
January 2008 John McFarland tries a wrongful foreclosure suit defending his lender client against claims brought by a party alleging to have purchased property as a good faith purchaser for value, resulting in a jury verdict and take-nothing judgment on the claims
September 2004 John McFarland is named as a Texas Super Lawyer by Texas Monthly magazine
March 2004 John McFarland is named as a Texas Rising Star by Texas Monthly magazine
December 2003 Charles McFarland is Board Certified in the area of Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
May 2004 John McFarland tries a fraud and lender liability suit on behalf of his lender client where the plaintiffs sought $6.5 million plus attorney\'s fees and exemplary damages, resulting in take-nothing judgment on the plaintiffs\' claims and judgment in excess of $1.5 million in favor of the lender on its counterclaims
December 1996 Jeff Joyce is Board Certified in the area of Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
We have been in some fights and we know how to win them. Our successes at trial and willingness to go the distance enhance our ability to achieve outstanding results for our clients at all stages of litigation.
The compensation question is, at its essence, a problem of market value to be resolved through the analysis of appraisals. We cannot appraise the property but are well situated to assist the property owner in determining whether to hire its own appraiser, who to hire, when to hire the appraiser, and the best approach to maximizing compensation. The condemning authority’s offer of compensation is typically supported by an appraisal, and at some point the condemning authority will have to provide the property owner with a copy of it. Once the appraisal comes in, the first step in its evaluation is to confirm that all legally compensable elements of market value have been considered. Depending on whether the condemnation involves a whole or partial taking, vacant or improved land, fee ownership or a leasehold interest, or claims for remainder damages, the issues involved in this evaluation can range from straight-forward to exceedingly complex. This is where our lawyers' extensive experience in analyzing compensation claims pays off.
The appraisal report in a condemnation case really contains two appraisals: an assessment of the market value of the whole property before the taking and of the property remaining after the taking. In most cases, the difference between these values will be the amount of compensation owed. Every case will involve an assessment of the whole property before the taking, and this assessment is critically important. In many cases, the market value of the whole property will be determinative of the compensation question, either because the taking is a whole taking or because the taking does not negatively impact the market value of the remainder property after the taking. Even in cases involving remainder damage issues, the reliability of the assessment of the remainder after the taking will depend on the accuracy of the assessment of the property before the taking.
The Relevant Parcel. The first issue to be considered in assessing the whole property is identifying the relevant parcel, sometimes referred to as the separate economic unit. In some instances, this will be the taking; in others, the relevant parcel will be all or part of the whole property. The bounds of the relevant parcel are in large part determined by the use of the property. The portions of the whole property that share the same highest and best use, up to and including the whole property, constitute the relevant parcel. This determination is critically important to determining the market value of the whole property and, thus, the market value of the property being taken. While in most cases the whole property will be the relevant parcel, when the relevant parcel is something less than the whole property, using the whole property as the relevant parcel unfairly averages the market value of the part taken with property that does not share its use potential.
Highest and Best Use. The next inquiry is whether the appraisal has adequately assessed the property’s use potential. The market value of property is not limited to its existing use. Instead, in determining market value, the appraiser must consider the property’s highest and best use, the reasonably probable and legal use of property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The appraiser’s conclusion of the relevant parcel’s highest and best use will control the appraiser’s selection of market data. Thus, an error at this point of the appraisal will taint all market value conclusions going forward in the appraisal.
Remainder Damages. The assessment of the remaining property after the taking is more complex. All of the issues presented by the appraisal estimate of the whole property’s market value still apply. Additionally, there are legal constraints on which impacts from a taking may be considered that can greatly alter an analysis of the remainder’s market value. As the Texas Supreme Court has remarked on many occasions, not every decrease in market value is compensable. Thus, while an appraiser may be able to quantify a negative impact from a taking, only the condemnation attorney can advise the client whether the impact is compensable and, thus, whether it warrants the attendant expense associated with litigating the issue.
