Loading
Oil and Gas
8 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Real Estate Appraisal, Eminent Domain, Natural Gas, Pipelines, Property Appraisal
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Middle District of Florida
In Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake County, Florida, 947 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2020), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed a Natural Gas Act condemnation dispute involving permanent and temporary pipeline easements across land owned by Sunderman Groves, Inc. Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, a natural gas pipeline company with federal approval, used the eminent domain authority provided by 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) to acquire easements for an underground natural gas pipeline.
Sunderman Groves ultimately stipulated that Sabal Trail was entitled to take the easements. The dispute then turned to compensation: the value of the easements, the loss in value to the remaining property, and later claims for attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s $309,500 compensation award, upheld Jan Sunderman’s property-owner valuation testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, and dismissed Sabal Trail’s premature attorney’s-fee appeal because the district court had not yet set the fee amount.
Sabal Trail Transmission filed an eminent domain action in the Middle District of Florida to condemn property interests needed for its interstate natural gas pipeline. The affected land included a 40-acre parcel in Lake County, Florida, owned by Sunderman Groves.
Sabal Trail sought a 1.535-acre permanent easement for pipeline installation, operation, access, maintenance, and related restrictions. It also sought a 2.386-acre temporary construction easement. Although Sunderman Groves initially contested aspects of the taking, it later stipulated that Sabal Trail was entitled to the easements. That left compensation as the main issue.
The compensation dispute proceeded to a four-day jury trial. Sabal Trail presented Richard Parham, a retained real estate appraiser, who valued total compensation at $56,800. His figure included $8,100 for the permanent easement, $5,000 for the temporary easement, and $43,700 in severance damages. Parham treated the remaining parcel as still suitable for rural residential development after the taking.
Sunderman Groves presented Matthew Ray, a retained real estate appraiser, who valued total compensation at $315,039. His opinion included $26,249 for the permanent easement, $15,013 for the temporary easement, and $273,777 in severance damages. Ray’s analysis placed greater weight on reduced buyer appeal, privacy limits, market resistance, and perceived concerns tied to an underground natural gas pipeline crossing the property.
Jan Sunderman also testified as an owner of Sunderman Groves. Her testimony addressed the land’s sales history, family ownership, planned rural residential use, buyer interest, and the effect she believed the pipeline had on the remaining property.
The jury awarded Sunderman Groves $309,500 in total compensation. The award included $17,500 for the permanent easement, $10,000 for the temporary easement, and $282,000 in severance damages.
The severance-damages award drove most of the verdict. That made the dispute less about the acreage physically occupied by the easements and more about how the pipeline affected the value, marketability, and future use of the land left behind.
Sabal Trail appealed and argued that the district court should not have allowed Jan Sunderman to testify about the remaining property’s value after the pipeline was built. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed the compensation judgment.
The court held that Jan Sunderman’s valuation testimony was admissible as lay opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. Her opinion was based on personal knowledge, ownership experience, sales history, and direct familiarity with buyer interest in the property. The court treated her testimony differently from a retained expert opinion under Rule 702.
In the same appeal, Sabal Trail challenged the district court’s ruling that Sunderman Groves was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The court explained that the district court had determined entitlement to fees and costs but had not yet set the amount. Without a final fee amount, there was no final decision on that issue for appellate review.
After the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the compensation judgment, the district court addressed additional compensation-related issues. The court awarded Sunderman Groves $13,071.60 in prejudgment interest.
The same date, the court also awarded Sunderman Groves $144,160 in district court attorney’s fees, $258,590 in appellate attorney’s fees, and $65,487.45 in district court costs, for a total fee-and-cost judgment of $468,237.45. These rulings moved the dispute beyond the jury’s valuation award and into the broader question of what compensation-related amounts were recoverable under Florida law in a Natural Gas Act condemnation case.
In a later appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of Florida law to attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Sabal Trail argued that federal law, not Florida law, should control those awards.
The Eleventh Circuit held that its prior Natural Gas Act compensation precedent controlled. As a result, Florida law applied to the measure of compensation in the federal condemnation proceeding, including the disputed fee, cost, and interest issues.
On March 7, 2024, the district court granted Sunderman Groves’s unopposed motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees incurred in Sabal Trail’s second appeal. The court directed Sunderman Groves to file a separate motion addressing the amount of fees sought.
On April 1, 2024, the district court denied Sunderman Groves’s motion to supplement its earlier fee-and-cost motion. That ruling rejected a separate effort to revisit already-decided fee issues based on later rate adjustments.
On November 20, 2024, the district court awarded Sunderman Groves $210,542.50 in supplemental attorney’s fees. The award related to later appellate and post-judgment proceedings after the original compensation judgment.
The later fee rulings show why Natural Gas Act condemnation disputes may continue long after a jury decides the value of the property taken. In this matter, litigation over fees, costs, and interest became a major part of the final compensation picture.
Court:
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Case Name:
Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake County, Florida
Appraisal
Attorney Fees
Condemnation
Easement Valuation
Highest and Best Use Analysis
Inverse Condemnation
Property Valuation
Rural Appraisal
Valuation
In Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake County, Florida, 947 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2020), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed a Natural Gas Act condemnation dispute involving permanent and temporary pipeline easements across land owned by Sunderman Groves, Inc. Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, a natural gas pipeline company with federal approval, used the eminent domain authority provided by 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) to acquire easements for an underground natural gas pipeline.
Sunderman Groves ultimately stipulated that Sabal Trail was entitled to take the easements. The dispute then turned to compensation: the value of the easements, the loss in value to the remaining property, and later claims for attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s $309,500 compensation award, upheld Jan Sunderman’s property-owner valuation testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, and dismissed Sabal Trail’s premature attorney’s-fee appeal because the district court had not yet set the fee amount.
Sabal Trail Transmission filed an eminent domain action in the Middle District of Florida to condemn property interests needed for its interstate natural gas pipeline. The affected land included a 40-acre parcel in Lake County, Florida, owned by Sunderman Groves.
Sabal Trail sought a 1.535-acre permanent easement for pipeline installation, operation, access, maintenance, and related restrictions. It also sought a 2.386-acre temporary construction easement. Although Sunderman Groves initially contested aspects of the taking, it later stipulated that Sabal Trail was entitled to the easements. That left compensation as the main issue.
The compensation dispute proceeded to a four-day jury trial. Sabal Trail presented Richard Parham, a retained real estate appraiser, who valued total compensation at $56,800. His figure included $8,100 for the permanent easement, $5,000 for the temporary easement, and $43,700 in severance damages. Parham treated the remaining parcel as still suitable for rural residential development after the taking.
Sunderman Groves presented Matthew Ray, a retained real estate appraiser, who valued total compensation at $315,039. His opinion included $26,249 for the permanent easement, $15,013 for the temporary easement, and $273,777 in severance damages. Ray’s analysis placed greater weight on reduced buyer appeal, privacy limits, market resistance, and perceived concerns tied to an underground natural gas pipeline crossing the property.
Jan Sunderman also testified as an owner of Sunderman Groves. Her testimony addressed the land’s sales history, family ownership, planned rural residential use, buyer interest, and the effect she believed the pipeline had on the remaining property.
The jury awarded Sunderman Groves $309,500 in total compensation. The award included $17,500 for the permanent easement, $10,000 for the temporary easement, and $282,000 in severance damages.
The severance-damages award drove most of the verdict. That made the dispute less about the acreage physically occupied by the easements and more about how the pipeline affected the value, marketability, and future use of the land left behind.
Sabal Trail appealed and argued that the district court should not have allowed Jan Sunderman to testify about the remaining property’s value after the pipeline was built. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed the compensation judgment.
The court held that Jan Sunderman’s valuation testimony was admissible as lay opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. Her opinion was based on personal knowledge, ownership experience, sales history, and direct familiarity with buyer interest in the property. The court treated her testimony differently from a retained expert opinion under Rule 702.
In the same appeal, Sabal Trail challenged the district court’s ruling that Sunderman Groves was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The court explained that the district court had determined entitlement to fees and costs but had not yet set the amount. Without a final fee amount, there was no final decision on that issue for appellate review.
After the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the compensation judgment, the district court addressed additional compensation-related issues. The court awarded Sunderman Groves $13,071.60 in prejudgment interest.
The same date, the court also awarded Sunderman Groves $144,160 in district court attorney’s fees, $258,590 in appellate attorney’s fees, and $65,487.45 in district court costs, for a total fee-and-cost judgment of $468,237.45. These rulings moved the dispute beyond the jury’s valuation award and into the broader question of what compensation-related amounts were recoverable under Florida law in a Natural Gas Act condemnation case.
In a later appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of Florida law to attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Sabal Trail argued that federal law, not Florida law, should control those awards.
The Eleventh Circuit held that its prior Natural Gas Act compensation precedent controlled. As a result, Florida law applied to the measure of compensation in the federal condemnation proceeding, including the disputed fee, cost, and interest issues.
On March 7, 2024, the district court granted Sunderman Groves’s unopposed motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees incurred in Sabal Trail’s second appeal. The court directed Sunderman Groves to file a separate motion addressing the amount of fees sought.
On April 1, 2024, the district court denied Sunderman Groves’s motion to supplement its earlier fee-and-cost motion. That ruling rejected a separate effort to revisit already-decided fee issues based on later rate adjustments.
On November 20, 2024, the district court awarded Sunderman Groves $210,542.50 in supplemental attorney’s fees. The award related to later appellate and post-judgment proceedings after the original compensation judgment.
The later fee rulings show why Natural Gas Act condemnation disputes may continue long after a jury decides the value of the property taken. In this matter, litigation over fees, costs, and interest became a major part of the final compensation picture.
Richard Parham – Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness for Sabal Trail
Richard Parham testified as Sabal Trail’s retained real estate appraisal expert. He valued total compensation at $56,800, including compensation for the permanent easement, temporary easement, and severance damages.
Parham concluded that the pipeline reduced the value of the remaining upland portion of the parcel by 25%, but he did not assign additional loss for stigma or fear related to the natural gas pipeline. His opinion treated the property as still usable for rural residential development.
Matthew Ray – Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness for Sunderman Groves
Matthew Ray testified as Sunderman Groves’s retained real estate appraisal expert. He valued total compensation at $315,039, including a much larger severance-damages figure.
Ray concluded that the pipeline reduced the value of each upland acre in the remaining parcel by 60%. His opinion addressed the pipeline’s effect on buyer behavior, future residential development, privacy, access, property division, and perceived safety concerns.
Jan Sunderman – Valuation Expert Witness for Sunderman Groves
Jan Sunderman testified as an owner of Sunderman Groves. Her testimony covered family ownership, land sales, prior buyer interest, intended rural residential use, and the effect of the pipeline on the parcel’s appeal to future buyers.
The Eleventh Circuit held that her testimony was admissible under Rule 701 because it came from personal knowledge and ownership experience. The court did not treat her as a retained expert under Rule 702.
Pipeline Easement Compensation
The compensation issue was not limited to the land physically occupied by the permanent and temporary easements. The jury also had to consider how the pipeline affected the remainder of the 40-acre parcel.
Severance Damages
Severance damages became the central valuation issue. The jury awarded $282,000 for loss in value to the remaining property, which made up most of the $309,500 verdict.
Competing Appraisal Methods
The gap between Parham’s $56,800 opinion and Ray’s $315,039 opinion came largely from different views of the property’s highest and best use, subdivision potential, market response, and reduction in value after the pipeline easement.
Property-Owner Testimony Under Rule 701
The Eleventh Circuit’s Rule 701 ruling is important for landowners and condemning authorities. A property owner may testify about value when the opinion is grounded in personal knowledge, ownership experience, and rational perception. The testimony cannot rest only on speculation.
Attorney’s-Fee Jurisdiction
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Sabal Trail’s attorney’s-fee appeal because the district court had not yet set the fee amount. The ruling reinforces that an order deciding entitlement to fees may not be immediately reviewable when the amount remains unresolved.
State-Law Compensation Principles in NGA Condemnation
Later proceedings addressed whether Florida law governed attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest in a federal Natural Gas Act condemnation action. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s use of Florida law for those compensation-related issues.
Sabal Trail v. Sunderman Groves began as an uncontested pipeline taking but became a detailed dispute over valuation, severance damages, lay owner testimony, and post-judgment compensation. Sabal Trail’s appraiser valued total compensation at $56,800, while Sunderman Groves’s appraiser valued total compensation at $315,039. The jury awarded $309,500, including $282,000 in severance damages. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the compensation judgment, upheld Jan Sunderman’s Rule 701 owner testimony, and dismissed Sabal Trail’s premature fee appeal. Later rulings added prejudgment interest and substantial attorney’s-fee and cost awards, making the case an important example of how pipeline easement compensation can extend beyond the easement acreage itself.
How much compensation did the jury award Sunderman Groves?
The jury awarded $309,500 in total compensation. That included $17,500 for the permanent easement, $10,000 for the temporary easement, and $282,000 in severance damages.
What are severance damages in an eminent domain case?
Severance damages compensate a landowner for the loss in value to the remaining property after only part of the property is taken. In this case, the severance-damages dispute focused on how the pipeline affected the market value and future rural residential use of the remaining land.
Who testified about property value?
Sabal Trail presented real estate appraiser Richard Parham. Sunderman Groves presented real estate appraiser Matthew Ray and owner witness Jan Sunderman.
Why was Jan Sunderman allowed to testify about property value?
The Eleventh Circuit held that Jan Sunderman’s testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because it was based on personal knowledge, ownership experience, sales history, and direct familiarity with the property.
Why did the attorney’s-fee litigation continue after the verdict?
The jury verdict resolved the property valuation dispute, but the parties continued to litigate whether Sunderman Groves could recover attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. Later rulings applied Florida compensation principles and awarded additional amounts beyond the jury’s valuation award.
Richard Parham – Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness for Sabal Trail
Richard Parham testified as Sabal Trail’s retained real estate appraisal expert. He valued total compensation at $56,800, including compensation for the permanent easement, temporary easement, and severance damages.
Parham concluded that the pipeline reduced the value of the remaining upland portion of the parcel by 25%, but he did not assign additional loss for stigma or fear related to the natural gas pipeline. His opinion treated the property as still usable for rural residential development.
Matthew Ray – Real Estate Appraisal Expert Witness for Sunderman Groves
Matthew Ray testified as Sunderman Groves’s retained real estate appraisal expert. He valued total compensation at $315,039, including a much larger severance-damages figure.
Ray concluded that the pipeline reduced the value of each upland acre in the remaining parcel by 60%. His opinion addressed the pipeline’s effect on buyer behavior, future residential development, privacy, access, property division, and perceived safety concerns.
Jan Sunderman – Valuation Expert Witness for Sunderman Groves
Jan Sunderman testified as an owner of Sunderman Groves. Her testimony covered family ownership, land sales, prior buyer interest, intended rural residential use, and the effect of the pipeline on the parcel’s appeal to future buyers.
The Eleventh Circuit held that her testimony was admissible under Rule 701 because it came from personal knowledge and ownership experience. The court did not treat her as a retained expert under Rule 702.
Pipeline Easement Compensation
The compensation issue was not limited to the land physically occupied by the permanent and temporary easements. The jury also had to consider how the pipeline affected the remainder of the 40-acre parcel.
Severance Damages
Severance damages became the central valuation issue. The jury awarded $282,000 for loss in value to the remaining property, which made up most of the $309,500 verdict.
Competing Appraisal Methods
The gap between Parham’s $56,800 opinion and Ray’s $315,039 opinion came largely from different views of the property’s highest and best use, subdivision potential, market response, and reduction in value after the pipeline easement.
Property-Owner Testimony Under Rule 701
The Eleventh Circuit’s Rule 701 ruling is important for landowners and condemning authorities. A property owner may testify about value when the opinion is grounded in personal knowledge, ownership experience, and rational perception. The testimony cannot rest only on speculation.
Attorney’s-Fee Jurisdiction
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Sabal Trail’s attorney’s-fee appeal because the district court had not yet set the fee amount. The ruling reinforces that an order deciding entitlement to fees may not be immediately reviewable when the amount remains unresolved.
State-Law Compensation Principles in NGA Condemnation
Later proceedings addressed whether Florida law governed attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest in a federal Natural Gas Act condemnation action. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s use of Florida law for those compensation-related issues.
Sabal Trail v. Sunderman Groves began as an uncontested pipeline taking but became a detailed dispute over valuation, severance damages, lay owner testimony, and post-judgment compensation. Sabal Trail’s appraiser valued total compensation at $56,800, while Sunderman Groves’s appraiser valued total compensation at $315,039. The jury awarded $309,500, including $282,000 in severance damages. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the compensation judgment, upheld Jan Sunderman’s Rule 701 owner testimony, and dismissed Sabal Trail’s premature fee appeal. Later rulings added prejudgment interest and substantial attorney’s-fee and cost awards, making the case an important example of how pipeline easement compensation can extend beyond the easement acreage itself.
How much compensation did the jury award Sunderman Groves?
The jury awarded $309,500 in total compensation. That included $17,500 for the permanent easement, $10,000 for the temporary easement, and $282,000 in severance damages.
What are severance damages in an eminent domain case?
Severance damages compensate a landowner for the loss in value to the remaining property after only part of the property is taken. In this case, the severance-damages dispute focused on how the pipeline affected the market value and future rural residential use of the remaining land.
Who testified about property value?
Sabal Trail presented real estate appraiser Richard Parham. Sunderman Groves presented real estate appraiser Matthew Ray and owner witness Jan Sunderman.
Why was Jan Sunderman allowed to testify about property value?
The Eleventh Circuit held that Jan Sunderman’s testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because it was based on personal knowledge, ownership experience, sales history, and direct familiarity with the property.
Why did the attorney’s-fee litigation continue after the verdict?
The jury verdict resolved the property valuation dispute, but the parties continued to litigate whether Sunderman Groves could recover attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. Later rulings applied Florida compensation principles and awarded additional amounts beyond the jury’s valuation award.
Appraisal
Attorney Fees
Condemnation
Easement Valuation
Highest and Best Use Analysis
Inverse Condemnation
Property Valuation
Rural Appraisal
Valuation
Oil and Gas
Hydrology, +4
Oil and Gas
Electrical Engineering, +4
Oil and Gas