Supreme Court denies new trial in condemnation suit

Monday, Nov. 25, 2002 | 9:57 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that Mary Bartsas is not entitled to a new trial in her lawsuit seeking $8.6 million for the condemnation of her property for the Las Vegas Beltway.

A jury had awarded $987,000 to Bartsas, which the high court reinstated. Three acres of a 40-acre parcel Bartsas owned were taken by the county.

After the jury's award, District Judge Mark Denton had granted a motion by Bartsas for a new trial unless Clark County agreed to a $2.8 million payment to the woman. Clark County appealed Denton's ruling.

Denton based his decision on Bartsas' claim that a surprise witness and testimony were presented at the trial. Clark County initially hired Kenneth Lamb & Associates to appraise the property. The company suggested a value of $2.8 million, of which $1.7 million should be paid in severance damages.

Severance damages are compensation for the impact that condemnation of one portion of a property has on the remainder of the parcel.

Clark County hired a second appraiser, Timothy Morse and Associates, who figured the value at $987,000 and said no severance damages should be awarded.

Before the trial Lamb & Associates changed its estimate by eliminating its recommendation for severance damages. Bartsas said she was blindsided by the change and was entitled to a new trial.

The Supreme Court said the initial appraisal was admitted into evidence but the first appraiser was not allowed to testify that he had changed his mind. Jurors also heard the second appraisal. The court said attorneys for Bartsas had the opportunity to cross-examine the second appraiser.

It said Bartsas was not surprised by Clark County's theory of valuation.

Bartsas will now be free to appeal the $987,000 verdict to the Nevada Supreme Court. The question about whether a new trial was in order had to be settled first before Bartsas could appeal the verdict.

In other action Friday, the court:

Reed had sued James and Dawn Shane, the owner of the Rottweiler. A settlement was reached, except on the emotional distress part of the claim.

District Judge Michael Douglas granted a pretrial summary judgment denying the distress claim, and the Supreme Court upheld his decision.

He said the members of the panel that would judge him would be competitors who have an interest in taking his law license because they would benefit from the business he would lose.

The court said Hall has not outlined any specific grievance against any of the panel members. And it said Hall "practices in this state's largest metropolitan area, not a small town with a few lawyers."

It said, "We conclude that petitioner has not overcome the presumption that the panel members will act with honesty and integrity."