ÿWPC¿ /# ¢UN­ %û 0(w@)4i}Œ 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uü 0dqU>ÕB) AQ< Æ 0DS 0@— 0D× DC D/^ B Bª D3Ç AMú U*G ýq v~n vÓì˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡    V V V  D  Ó€( ê‚_#pppdN3|x( 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó7Border 1dd(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd!#%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌDecember€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ýò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€<‚XXdðdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóÌCITY€OF€MURFREESBORO,€œa›à àà à)ÌMunicipal€Corporation€in€Rutherfordà à)ÌCounty,€State€of€Tennessee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óRutherford€Circuit€ConsolidatedÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óCase€Nos.€34626€and€34629Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMARIANN€M.€œWORTHINGTON,›€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€œ01A01„9703„CV„00124›ÌÙ€!Ùò òœßR€*,%A1-j|ÙûÌ` ç `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appelleeò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCITY€OF€MURFREESBORO,€œa›à àà à)ÌMunicipal€Corporation€in€Rutherfordà à)ÌCounty,€State€of€Tennessee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTHOMAS€W.€WORTHINGTON€andà à)Ìwife,€Mariann€M.€Worthington,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendants/Appellees.ò òà àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€RUTHERFORD€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MURFREESBORO,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€JUDGEÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellant:à àà àà àFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó:òòÌóóÌThomas€L.€Reed,€Jr.à àà àà àà àGranville€S.R.€Bouldin,€Jr.ÌJerry€E.€Farmer€€€à àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TennesseeÌMurfreesboro,€Tennesseeà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÌà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€REVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÇØØÙ  Ùò òÑ7€<‚XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€a€condemnation€case.€The€sole€issue€at€trial€was€the€amount€of€compensation€theÏlandowners€should€receive.€€A€jury€returned€a€verdict€awarding€the€landowners€a€total€of€$30,500.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€œappellant€condemning€authority›€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€taxÏappraisals€performed€on€the€property€to€be€introduced€into€evidence€and€that€the€trial€court€used€theÏwrong€valuation€œmethod.€€We›€reverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€€Ìà àThis€appeal€arises€from€two€condemnation€proceedings€filed€by€the€City€of€MurfreesboroÏ(ð ðCityðð)€in€1995.€€The€City€is€constructing€the€Stones€River€Greenway,€a€linear€park€or€ð ðriver€trailððÏthat€borders€the€west€bank€of€the€Stones€River.€€The€Stones€River€flows€in€a€general€north„southÏdirection€through€the€city€of€Murfreesboro.€€The€Greenway€was€developed€by€the€National€ParksÏService€as€a€means€of€linking€together€the€various€National€Stones€River€Battlefield€sites€that€existÏthroughout€Murfreesboro.€€The€City€acquired€the€rear€portions€of€properties€backing€up€to€the€westÏbank€of€the€Stones€River,€in€some€cases€by€voluntary€sales€by€landowners,€and€in€other€cases€byÏexercising€its€power€of€eminent€domain.€€The€Greenway€is€about€three€miles€long,€with€a€trailÏsurface€about€twelve€feet€wide.€Ìà àIn€1970,€Thomas€and€Mariann€Worthington€purchased€nearly€16€acres€of€land,€bounded€onÏthe€west€by€Thompson€Lane,€a€well„traveled€three„lane€road,€and€bounded€on€the€east€by€the€westÏbank€of€the€Stones€River.€€A€portion€of€this€land€belonged€solely€to€Mariann€œWorthington;›€theÏremainder€belonged€to€the€Worthingtons€jointly.€€At€the€time€of€purchase,€the€land€was€low„lyingÏand€prone€to€yearly€flooding.€€The€western€portion€of€the€property€that€fronted€Thompson€LaneÏwas€capable€of€being€filled€in€for€a€depth€of€350€feet.€€The€rear€portion€of€the€property€was€a€no„fillÏzone€which€extended€back€to€the€centerline€of€the€river€for€a€distance€of€200€feet.€€Mr.€WorthingtonÏowned€his€own€construction€company.€€Over€the€course€of€several€years,€he€filled€in€the€westernÏportion€of€his€property€which€fronted€Thompson€Lane€back€to€the€no„fill€zone.€€This€resulted€in€aÏ10„15€foot€drop€off€leading€down€to€the€riverððs€edge.€€The€Worthingtons€subdivided€the€land€andÏsold€all€but€two€non„contiguous€lots€œ(Tracts›€7€&€10)€at€a€substantial€profit.€€The€value€of€theÏsubdivided€lots,€including€œTracts›€7€&€10,€is€derived€from€the€fact€that€they€are€filled,€zonedÍœcommercial,›€and€front€on€Thompson€Lane.€€Tracts€7€and€10,€which€were€not€sold,€front€onÏThompson€Lane€and€extend€back€to€the€œcenterline›€œof€the›€Stones€River.̜Ǜà àThe€City€condemned€the€rear€portions€of€œTracts›€7€and€10€in€order€to€establish€theÏGreenway.€€The€City€certified€that€the€Worthingtons€would€receive€remainder€parcels€from€theÏcondemned€land€in€order€to€retain€irrigation€rights€from€the€river€by€means€of€an€underground€pipe.€ÏThe€larger€of€the€two€œtracts,›€Tract€œ7,›€is€solely€owned€by€Mariann€Worthington.€€The€total€area€ofÏœTract›€7€amounted€to€5.53€acres.€€The€City€condemned€2.53€acres,€leaving€Mariann€WorthingtonÏwith€3€acres.€€Tract€10€is€the€smaller€œtract›€and€is€jointly€owned€by€the€Worthingtons.€€Tract€10Ïencompassed€1.7€acres.€€The€City€took€1.05€acres,€leaving€a€remainder€of€œ0.65›€acres.Ìà àNearly€all€of€the€land€condemned€by€the€City€fell€within€the€no„fill€zone.€€Of€the€2.53€acresÏtaken€from€Tract€7,€œ0.84›€acres€consisted€of€land€œfrom›€the€middle€of€Stones€œriver›€to€the€riverbank,Ïwith€the€remaining€1.69€acres€running€from€the€edge€of€the€riverbank€westward.€€Of€the€1.05€acresÏtaken€from€Tract€10,€œ0.52›€acres€ran€from€the€centerline€of€the€river€to€the€riverbank,€with€theÏremaining€œ0.53›€acres€running€from€the€riverbank€westward.€€The€record€suggests€that€there€wereÏvery€limited€uses€for€the€land€taken€by€the€City.€€Thomas€Worthington€testified€that€the€land€takenÏfloods€regularly€to€a€depth€of€8„10€feet.€€Furthermore,€the€taken€property€had€always€been€subjectÏto€a€sewer€œeasement.›Ìà àThe€City€appraised€the€land€taken€from€Tract€7€at€$2,550€and€the€land€taken€from€Tract€10Ïat€$1,050.€€The€Worthingtons€testified€that€the€value€of€Tract€7€before€the€taking€was€worthÏ$442,000,€and€after€the€taking€the€remaining€land€was€worth€$240,000.€€The€2.53€acres€takenÏfrom€Tract€7€was€thus€assigned€the€difference€in€value,€$202,000.€€Using€the€same€method€ofÏvaluation,€€referred€to€as€the€ð ðbefore„and„afterðð€method€of€valuation,€the€Worthingtons€testified€thatÏthe€value€of€the€land€taken€from€Tract€10€was€$131,000.€€The€Worthingtons€did€not€claimÏincidental€damages€or€benefits€to€their€properties.€Ìà àThe€œWorthingtonsðð›€appraiser,€John€Shearron,€Jr.,€also€employed€the€œbefore„and„after›Ïmethod€of€valuation.€€He€testified€that€the€value€of€the€portion€of€Tract€7€taken€by€the€City€wasÏ$155,000,€and€€that€the€value€of€the€portion€of€Tract€10€taken€by€the€City€was€$67,404.€€NeitherÏthe€Worthingtons€nor€Shearron€attempted€to€value€the€actual€property€taken,€but€rather€arrived€atÍtheir€valuation€by€valuing€the€total€property€before€the€take,€and€subtracting€from€that€the€value€ofÏthe€remaining€property€after€the€take.̜Ǜà àDuring€cross„examination€of€the€Cityððs€appraiser,€counsel€for€the€Worthingtons€informedÏthe€jury€of€the€county€tax€appraisals€of€Tracts€7€and€10€before€and€after€the€take.€€He€noted€that,Ïbefore€the€take,€Tract€7€was€worth€$160,200,€after€the€take€at€$114,800,€for€a€difference€ofÏ$45,400.€€He€also€noted€that€Tract€10€was€appraised€at€$77,500€before€the€take,€and€after€the€takeÏat€$36,600,€for€a€difference€of€$40,900.€€The€trial€court€allowed€these€valuations€into€evidence,Ïover€the€Cityððs€objection.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€city€of€Murfreesboro€does€not€employ€aÏproperty€tax€assessor€and€œthat€the›€Rutherford€County€tax€appraiser€appraises€all€property€in€theÏCity€of€Murfreesboro€for€property€tax€purposes.€€The€trial€court€permitted€the€Worthingtons€toÏprovide€exhibits€to€the€jury€which€listed€the€county€tax€œappraisal›€values.€€During€their€œdeliberations,›Ïthe€jury€requested€the€exhibits€containing€the€tax€assessment€valuations.€€The€trial€court€refused€thisÏrequest.€€€€Ìà àThe€jury€then€returned€a€verdict,€setting€the€just€compensation€for€the€2.53€acres€taken€fromÏTract€7€at€$20,000€and€the€1.05€acres€taken€from€Tract€10€at€$10,500.€€The€City€filed€a€motion€forÏnew€œtrial.›€€The€City€argued€that€the€trial€court€improperly€allowed€the€jury€to€consider€the€appraisalÏvalues€found€in€the€tax€assessment€records€œof€the›€Rutherford€County€assessor.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€œthe€Cityððs›€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€City€now€appeals€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€City€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€the€Worthingtons€toÏintroduce€into€evidence€the€Rutherford€county€tax€appraisals.€€In€addition,€the€City€contends€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€Worthingtons€to€introduce€into€evidence€valuations€deduced€byÏusing€the€before„and„after€method€of€valuation.€€We€first€consider€the€issue€regarding€the€use€of€theÏcounty€tax€appraisals.Ìà àOver€the€Cityððs€objection,€the€trial€court€allowed€into€evidence€the€Rutherford€County€taxÏappraisals€of€Tracts€7€and€10,€both€before€and€after€the€takings,€and€allowed€counsel€for€theÏWorthingtons€to€show€these€documents€to€the€jury.€€On€appeal,€the€Worthingtons€contend€that€theÏtax€appraisals€were€never€offered€as€proof€of€value,€but€instead€were€œused›€to€impeach€the€CityÏappraiser.€€The€trial€courtððs€directions€to€the€jury€were€in€accordance€with€this.€€In€their€appellateÍœbrief,›€the€Worthingtons€assert:ÌÓÓà8 àWhile€conceding€that€the€tax€valuations€do€not€represent€the€fair€cash€market€valueÏof€the€property,€it€is€nevertheless€entirely€appropriate€to€call€into€question€the€valuesÏof€the€Cityððs€appraisal€witness€that€are€twenty€and€forty€times€less€than€the€taxÏvaluation,€a€figure€known€to€be€uniformly€less€than€actual€fair€market€value.€ÌÌÓӜǛà àIn€Tennessee,€property€tax€valuations€are€not€admissible€to€prove€the€value€of€a€parcel€orÏany€portion€thereof.€òòò òSeeó óóó€òòò òKnoxville€Housing€Authority€v.€Boweró óóó,€308€S.W.2d€398,€401Ïœ(Tenn.€1957);›€òòò òWest€Tennessee€Power€&€Light€Co.€v.€Hughesó óóó,€15€œTenn.€App.›€37€œ(Tenn.ÏApp.€1932);›€òòò òWray€v.€Knoxville,€LaFollette€&€Jellico€œR.R.€Co.ó óóó,›€113€Tenn.€544,€82ÏœS.W.€471›€œ(Tenn.€1904).›€€However,€the€parties€dispute€whether€property€tax€valuations€may€beÏused€for€impeachment€purposes.€Ìà àòòò òWray€ó óóóinvolved€a€proceeding€to€condemn€a€portion€of€two€lots€for€railroad€purposes.€Ïò òòòWrayó óóó,€œ15€Tenn.€App.€at€547.›€€The€only€issue€for€the€jury€to€determine€was€the€amount€ofÏcompensation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€€The€condemning€authority€was€permitted€to€introduce€into€evidence€a€taxÏassessment€record,€over€the€landownerððs€objection.€€The€tax€assessment€record€contained€aÏvaluation€of€one€of€the€lots€by€one€of€the€appellant€landowners.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€œ559.›€€It€is€unclear€whetherÏthe€tax€assessment€record€was€introduced€for€impeachment€purposes,€although€the€Court€noted€thatÏthe€evidence€did€not€establish€that€the€signature€on€the€record€was€œth›œat›€of€the€landowner.€€œò òòòId.€ÏWrayó óóó›€states:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€law€does€not€require€an€owner€to€value€his€real€estate,€but€merely€to€describe€itÏœfor€the›€purposes€of€assessment€for€taxation.€€The€valuation,€if€made€of€theÏ[property]€by€the€œ[landowner],€.€.€.€,›€was€for€a€wholly€different€purpose€from€theÏpresent€one.€€This€court€knows€judicially€and€as€a€part€of€the€financial€history€of€theÏœState›€that€land€is€never€assessed€for€purposes€of€taxation€at€its€real€cash€marketÏvalue,€though€that€may€be€the€law,€but€only€in€comparison€with€other€lands€aroundÏit,€and,€if€[landowner]€valued€it,€we€would€presume€she€placed€such€comparativeÏvalue,€instead€of€the€real€market€value,€upon€it.Ìà8 àà àIt€is€said€in€Lewis€on€Eminent€Domain,€œsection€448,›€that€the€assessment€ofÏproperty€for€taxation€being€made€for€other€purposes,€and€not€at€the€instance€ofÏeither€party,€and€not€usually€at€the€market€value€of€the€property,€is€not€admissible€asÏevidence€of€value€in€condemnation€proceedings.ÓÓÌòòò òœId.ó óóó€at€559„60.›€€The€admission€of€the€tax€assessment€record€was€deemed€improper,€and€theÏjudgment€was€reversed.€€Thus,€the€ò òòòWrayó óóó€court€noted€that€valuation€for€tax€assessment€purposesÏwas€ð ðwholly€differentðð€from€valuation€to€determine€fair€market€value,€and€concluded€that€it€was€notÏadmissible.€€à àIn€the€alternative,€the€Worthingtons€contend€that€the€tax€assessment€records€wereÏadmissible€as€prior€inconsistent€statements.€€Whether€this€is€really€a€different€purpose€is€debatable,Ísince€the€overall€purpose€remains€to€discredit€the€stateððs€appraisal€witness.€€Regardless,€evenÏthough€no€Tennessee€case€has€specifically€addressed€this€argument,€the€majority€of€states€whichÏhave€considered€it€have€deemed€the€tax€assessment€records€inadmissible€for€this€purpose.€€òòò òSeeó óóóÏòòò òAlabama€v.€Griffithó óóó,€290€œSo.€2d›€162,€164€œ(Ala.€1974)›€(admission€against€interest€theory€isÏminority€theory€which€Alabama€does€not€follow);€òòò òHetherington€Letter€Co.€v.€City€ofÏCedar€Rapidsó óóó,€207€N.W.2d€800,€801„803€(Iowa€1973)€(tax€valuation€not€admissible€asÏadmission€against€condemnor€because€purpose€is€to€fairly€distribute€costs€of€government,€not€to€fixÏjust€compensation);òòò ò€Bergen€County€Sewer€Authority€v.€Borough€of€Little€Ferryó óóó,€83ÏA.2d€4,€9€œ(N.J.€€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1951)›€(tax€assessments€inadmissable€as€admission€byÏmunicipality);€òòò òState€Hwy.€Commððn€v.€Andereggó óóó,€403€P.2d€717,€718€œ(Or.›€œ1965)€(ð ðgreat›Ïweight€of€authorityðð€holds€assessments€not€admissible€as€admission€against€interest€byÏcondemners);€òòò òGirard€Trust€Co.€œv.›€City€of€Philadelphiaó óóó,€93€A.€947,€œ(Pa.€1915)›€(city€cannotÏbe€held€to€adopt€action€of€another€independent€public€agency€which€sets€tax€assessments);Ïòòò òWayland€v.€City€of€Seattleó óóó,€165€P.€113,€114€œ(Wash.€1917)›€(tax€assessments€not€a€declarationÏagainst€interest€by€city€in€condemnation€cases€because€made€by€different€officers€performingÏdistinct€functions€for€different€purposes).€€€The€rationale€for€this€view€is€set€forth€in€òòò òUnitedÏœStates€v.€Certain›€Parcels€of€Landó óóó,€261€F.2d€287€œ(4th.€Cir.›€1958):ÌÓÓà8 àIt€is€suggested€that€evidence€of€assessed€value,€offered€by€the€landowner,€may€beÏreceived€as€an€admission€against€interest€when€the€assessing€authority€is€theÏcondemnor.€Ìà@ àœ***›Ìà8 àAside€from€the€general€unreliability€of€tax€assessments€as€an€indication€of€marketÏvalue,€which€ought€to€make€them€suspect€in€any€case,€the€assessing€officials€areÏrepresentatives€of€the€public.€€The€power€of€a€tax€official€to€bind€the€public€isÏœlimited,›€and€what€he€does€for€purposes€of€taxation,€should€not€be€binding€upon€theÏpublic,€or€prejudicial€to€the€public€interest,€when€other€public€officials€are€engagedÏin€the€performance€of€a€very€different€public€function€in€an€unrelated€field.€€ThoughÏthe€tax€official€may€purport€to€use€market€value€as€the€criterion€of€œassessed›€value,Ïhis€primary€concern€is€with€relative,€not€absolute,€values,€but€however€he€exercisesÏhis€judgment€for€purposes€of€a€reasonable€distribution€of€the€tax€burden,€his€act,€asÏan€extrajudicial€declaration,€may€not€circumscribe€the€interest€of€the€public€in€theÏdifficult€process€of€determining€just€compensation€for€property€taken€for€public€use.ÌÓÓÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€œ291€(citations€omitted).€€òòò òBut›€seeó óóó€òòò òIn€œre€Site€for€Memorial›€œHalló óóó,€25›€N.W.2d€174Ïœ(Mich.€1946)€(evidence›€of€assessed€value,€offered€by€landowner,€may€be€received€as€admissionÏagainst€interest€when€assessing€authority€is€the€sole€condemnor);€òòò òLouisiana€œHwy.›€œCommððn›€v.ÏœGiacconeó óóó,€140›€œSo.€286›€œ(La.€1932)›€(landowner€allowed€to€use€the€assessed€value€as€the€minimumÏbelow€which€the€condemnation€price€should€not€go,€when€state,€through€a€different€department,Ïwas€attempting€to€take€land€for€less€than€the€assessment€value.)Ìà àWe€find€the€majority€view€persuasive,€and€hold€that€admission€of€the€tax€assessmentÏvaluations€into€evidence€in€order€to€discredit€the€testimony€of€the€Cityððs€œappraiser€was€error.›Ìà àThe€Worthingtons€argue€that€any€error€in€admitting€the€tax€records€into€evidence€wasÏharmless,€and€does€not€warrant€reversal.€€The€jury€in€this€case€heard€references€to€the€tax€appraisalÏforms€during€cross„examination€of€the€Cityððs€appraiser.€€Counsel€for€the€Worthingtons€publishedÏthe€tax€appraisal€forms€to€the€jury€during€the€trial€and€the€jurors€were€allowed€to€take€notes€duringÏthe€trial.€€The€jury€made€a€specific€request€during€their€deliberations€to€see€the€exhibits€containingÏthe€values€of€the€tax€assessments.€€In€a€case€such€as€this,€where€the€asserted€values€of€the€takenÏproperty€differed€by€such€a€significant€amount,€we€cannot€find€that€the€error€was€harmless.€€TheÏjudgment€must€be€reversed€and€the€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€€This€holdingÏmakes€it€unnecessary€to€consider€any€remaining€issues€on€appeal.Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÌ€€€€€€€€€