## Facts

- Frank E. Acierno and Albert Marta jointly owned about 400 acres of undeveloped land in New Castle County, Delaware, in the Christiana area near major highways and growing commercial development.
- Increasing congestion in the area led the State of Delaware, through the Department of Transportation, to plan major road work, including realignment of Delaware Route 7 as a four-lane highway and construction of a regional interchange near the Christiana Mall.
- The highway project required acquisition of roughly 59–60 acres from the Acierno/Marta tract, including a permanent taking and related permanent and temporary easements.
- Acierno and Marta negotiated with the State and proposed donating some acreage and selling other acreage needed for the project, but the parties did not reach a final agreement.
- The State initiated condemnation proceedings in the Superior Court to acquire the needed property interests.
- Marta settled with the State and was dismissed from the action, leaving Acierno as the remaining litigant on just compensation for his interest.
- In a pretrial ruling, the Superior Court determined that Acierno and Marta had donated 18 acres for part of the Route 7 realignment, but Acierno remained entitled to compensation for his one-half interest in the remaining acreage taken for the project (roughly 41 acres of the condemned area).
- At the commissioners’ hearing to determine compensation, the State presented valuation evidence that the project increased the value of the remaining land and argued the award should be reduced to zero because project-related “special benefits” to the remainder offset any damages.
- Acierno presented competing valuation evidence contending the project reduced his property value and sought an award in the range of $15 million.
- Condemnation commissioners awarded Acierno $266,000 as just compensation. The Superior Court entered judgment on the award and rejected Acierno’s challenges, and Acierno appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a partial-taking condemnation, the factfinder may offset damages by project-related special benefits to the remaining property when determining just compensation, and whether the commissioners applied the correct standard.
2. Whether the Superior Court committed reversible error in its trial management and evidentiary rulings affecting appraisal and valuation testimony, including denial of a late request to subpoena an additional rebuttal witness.
3. Whether the voir dire of the condemnation commissioners was so limited that it failed to provide an impartial panel.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment and the commissioners’ $266,000 award.
- The Court held that Delaware law permits consideration of special benefits to the remainder in a partial-taking case and allows those benefits to offset damages when supported by evidence.
- The Court concluded the commissioners’ award was supported by competent evidence within the range of the competing valuation proof, and the Court would not reweigh credibility or factual determinations.
- The Court found no reversible abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings, including its decision not to permit a late subpoena for an additional rebuttal witness.
- The Court held the voir dire was adequate absent a showing that any commissioner was biased or that the process materially failed to screen for impartiality.

## Legal Principles

- In a partial-taking condemnation, just compensation is determined by valuing the taking and the effect on the remainder, and project-related special benefits to the remainder may be considered as an offset against damages.
- Condemnation commissioners are the primary factfinders on valuation; an award will be upheld on appeal if supported by competent evidence and based on a correct legal standard.
- Trial-court rulings on admission and limits of valuation testimony, scheduling, and late witness requests are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversal requires a showing of prejudice.
- Voir dire of condemnation commissioners is sufficient when it reasonably tests for bias; a party seeking reversal must show more than speculation about partiality.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a $266,000 condemnation award arising from the State’s acquisition of acreage and easements for the Route 7 realignment and Christiana-area interchange, holding that special benefits to the remaining property could offset damages, the commissioners’ valuation was supported by competent evidence, and alleged evidentiary and voir dire errors did not warrant reversal.


Acierno v. State of Delaware, 643 A.2d 1328 (1994)