Civil Practice: Condemnation-Judge Request

(1)Where appellant land owner challenged a judgment awarding him $573,000 as compensation for the condemnation of his property and assessing $21,207 in costs against him, the presiding judge had authority to specially assign the action to another judge, so the trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s untimely request for a new judge, and the judgment did not clearly indicate that it did not follow the law in assessing costs against him.

(2)Where appellant land owner challenged a judgment in a condemnation case, the judgment was supported by substantial evidence, and a statute mandated the exclusion of the amount appellant paid for the extinguishment of its leasehold interest, so the judgment is affirmed over the appellant’s remaining evidentiary challenges.

Judgment is affirmed.

Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis v. Osher (MLW No. 74915/Case No. ED107081 – 33 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Hess, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, David L. Dowd, J. (Daniel R. Schramm and Tracy H. Gilroy for appellant) (Gerard T. Carmody, Christopher P. Kellett, Ryan M. Prsha and Ryann C. Carmody for respondent).