The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld a $3 million jury verdict awarded to William Lewis and Cody Lewis, co-trustees of the William Major Lewis Trust, in a case involving eminent domain. The ruling, delivered on October 28, 2026, comes after the Arkansas State Highway Commission condemned portions of the Lewises' property for a highway project, significantly affecting their access to a major road. This case highlights the complexities of property rights and just compensation in the context of government land acquisition.

The dispute began on August 7, 2015, when the Highway Commission condemned two tracts of land owned by the Lewises. The condemnation eliminated their direct access to Dave Ward Drive, a crucial thoroughfare in Conway, Arkansas. The Highway Commission initially deposited $417,825 into the court as its estimate of just compensation for the taking. However, the Lewises argued that the value of their property had significantly decreased due to the loss of access, leading to a lengthy legal battle.

The case progressed through several years of appraisal and discovery before reaching a jury trial in June 2024. The Lewises' appraiser testified that the total just compensation for both tracts was approximately $3.8869 million, while the Highway Commission's appraiser valued the taking at only $417,825. The jury ultimately awarded the Lewises $3 million, which was significantly higher than the Highway Commission's estimate.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the Arkansas State Highway Commission, the appellant, and William Lewis and Cody Lewis, the appellees. The dispute centers around the condemnation of land owned by the Lewises for a highway project that required the elimination of their direct access to Dave Ward Drive.

The case was initiated when the Highway Commission condemned the property, claiming that the taking was necessary for public use. The Lewises contested the amount of compensation offered, arguing that the value of their property had diminished significantly due to the loss of access and the costs incurred in constructing new roads to restore some level of access to their property.

After several years of legal proceedings, including pretrial hearings and motions, the case went to trial in June 2024. The trial focused on the valuation of the property and the admissibility of evidence regarding the costs incurred by the Lewises in building new roads to access their property.

The Ruling

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict, rejecting the Highway Commission's arguments that the trial court had erred in admitting evidence regarding the costs of constructing new roads and roundabouts. The court ruled that such evidence was relevant to determining the diminution in market value caused by the taking.

The court stated, "The roads the Lewises built were the means of restoring functional access to the part of the property fronting the highway."

The court also found that the jury's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the Lewises' appraiser and trustee, who provided detailed valuations of the property before and after the taking. The court noted that the jury had the discretion to weigh conflicting evidence and determine the appropriate compensation.

Additionally, the court upheld the award of attorney's fees and costs to the Lewises, concluding that the Highway Commission had not adequately challenged the reasonableness of the fees requested. The court emphasized that the award of fees was justified under Arkansas law, as the jury's award exceeded the amount deposited by the Highway Commission.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for property owners facing eminent domain actions in Arkansas and potentially beyond. It reinforces the principle that property owners are entitled to just compensation for the taking of their land, including consideration of the impact on access and the costs incurred to mitigate that impact.

The decision also clarifies the admissibility of cost-to-cure evidence in condemnation cases, allowing property owners to present evidence of expenses incurred to restore access as part of their claim for compensation. This could encourage other property owners to pursue similar claims when faced with government takings, knowing that they may have a legal basis for recovering costs associated with restoring access to their property.

What's Next

The Arkansas State Highway Commission has the option to appeal this ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future eminent domain disputes and the standards for just compensation in Arkansas.