Tri-Met v. Walnut Hill, LLC

TriMet appealed monetary judgments and assigned error to the trial court’s rulings on the pertinent motions in limine. TriMet argued that evidence of Monroe Street LLC’s ownership was relevant because it would show the potential for future development through modifications to both the Walnut Hill and Monroe Street Properties. In response, Walnut Hill LCC asserted that the trial court did not err when it excluded the ownership evidence because that evidence described potential benefits available only to the current owners of the Walnut Hill property and “not available to prospective purchasers.” "'Common ownership’ is not established simply because an LLC owns one parcel and the owners of the LLC own the neighboring parcel.” Dept. of Transportation v. Pilothouse 60, LLC, 220 Or. App. 203, 213, 185, P.3d 487, rev den, 345 Or. 417 (2008). The Court found the trial court did not err by granting Walnut Hill LLC’s motions in limine to exclude TriMet’s evidence of the relationship among the owners of the three properties. The Court held that the ownership evidence would not have supported, or been relevant to, a non-speculative argument that a hypothetical purchaser of the Walnut Hill property would have been able to obtain parking either at Chestnut Hill or through access across the Monroe Street properties. Affirmed.