LAURA DENVIR STITH, Chief Justice.
Respondent, the Honorable Marco Rol-dan, held that because the parties to the underlying condemnation action filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report of damages, he w’ould not determine whether the property qualified for an award of heritage value as an element of just compensation under section 523.061,1 pending the jury’s determination of damages pursuant to the exceptions. Relators petitioned this Court to direct Respondent to determine heritage value prior to the jury trial on exceptions. This Court issued its preliminary writ.
[571]*571Missouri statutes do not preclude a trial judge from determining whether a condemned property qualifies for heritage value merely because one or more parties to the condemnation action have filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report of damages. To the contrary, section 523.061’s direction that the trial judge determine heritage value imposes an independent obligation to do so, without regard to whether exceptions have been filed. But, here, Respondent was unable to determine heritage value because he had failed to ask the commissioners to determine whether the property had been owned by the White family for fifty years or more. A finding of such ownership is a factual prerequisite to a finding of heritage value. Further, section 528.039.3 is specific that this finding must be made by the commissioners or the jury; it does not give the judge the authority to make the determination of years of ownership where, as here, the judge should have, but did not, request the commissioners to so determine.
This Court, therefore, directs Respondent to issue an amended order to the commissioners directing them to determine whether Relators’ property has been in the White family for fifty years or more. Respondent then should determine Rela-tors’ motion requesting that heritage value be added to the damages found by the commissioners to determine just compensation, without regard to whether exceptions have been filed.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Relators, the C.F. White Family Partnership and Lupton Living Trust, own 45 acres of land in Independence, Missouri. Through condemnation, the city of Independence sought 15 of those acres. Rela-tors allege that the property has been in the White family for more than fifty years. On October 30, 2007, Respondent entered an order of condemnation and appointed commissioners to determine the value of the property taken. He instructed the commissioners to:
meet, qualify according to law, view the property after providing no less than ten (10) days notice to the parties prior to the viewing and forthwith return, under oath, to the Circuit Court Administrator, their report of such assessment of net damages, if any, which the Defendants may sustain by reason of the appropriation, taking into consideration the benefits to be derived by the owners, as well as the damages sustained, and setting forth and stating the amount of net damages allowed the said Defendants, together with a specific description of the property for which such damage was assessed.
In their report, the commissioners assessed the damages for taking Relators’ property at $1,415,000. Their report also states:
The commissioners herein state they have not made a determination whether a homestead taking has occurred or ivhether heritage value is payable and the amount of the award for each foregoing parcel does not include any amount for a homestead taking or for heritage value.
(emphasis added). Relators thereafter moved for a determination whether the property qualifies for heritage value and filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report. The City also filed exceptions. Respondent then issued his order stating that he “decline[d] to rule on Defendant’s Motion for Assessment of Heritage Value at this time by reason of the filing of exceptions,” which would necessitate a jury trial to determine damages.
Believing that sections 523.039 and 523.061 entitle them to a determination of [572]*572the heritage value of their property and payment of just compensation into the court regardless whether exceptions are filed, Relators petitioned this Court to issue a writ of prohibition directing Respondent to determine the heritage value of their property and to award them just compensation.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Prohibition is an original remedial writ brought to confine a lower court to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Lebanon School Dist. R-III v. Winfrey, 183 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Mo. banc 2006). This Court has the authority to “issue and determine original remedial writs.” Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 4.1. A writ of prohibition is appropriate to preserve “the orderly and economical administration of justice,”2 or where there is “an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review by this Court, and the aggrieved party may suffer considerable hardship and expense as a consequence of the erroneous decision.”3 Where, as here, issuance of the writ depends on the interpretation of a statute, this Court reviews the statute’s meaning de novo. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 908 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Mo. banc 1995). In so doing, this Court’s primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Relevant Statutory Provisions Governing Atvard of Just Compensation for Property with Heritage Value
Missouri’s Constitution provides that “private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” Mo. Const, art. I, sec. 26. In the absence of a constitutional definition of “just compensation,” this Court has defined it as:
what a reasonable buyer would give who was willing but did not have to purchase, and what a seller would take who was willing but did not have to sell.... The measure of damages for the taking is to be determined as of the time of the taking.
In re Armory Site in Kansas City, 282 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Mo.1955) (citations omitted). In 2006, the legislature enacted a statutory definition of just compensation:
Just compensation for condemned property shall be ...
(1) An amount equivalent to the fair market value of such property;
(2) For condemnations that result in a homestead taking, an amount equivalent to the fan- market value of such property multiplied by one hundred twenty-five percent; or
(3) For condemnations of property that result in any taking that prevents the owner from utilizing property in substantially the same manner as it was currently being utilized on the day of the taking and involving property owned within the same family for fifty or more years, an amount equivalent to the sum of the fair market value and heritage value....
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LAURA DENVIR STITH, Chief Justice.
Respondent, the Honorable Marco Rol-dan, held that because the parties to the underlying condemnation action filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report of damages, he w’ould not determine whether the property qualified for an award of heritage value as an element of just compensation under section 523.061,1 pending the jury’s determination of damages pursuant to the exceptions. Relators petitioned this Court to direct Respondent to determine heritage value prior to the jury trial on exceptions. This Court issued its preliminary writ.
[571]*571Missouri statutes do not preclude a trial judge from determining whether a condemned property qualifies for heritage value merely because one or more parties to the condemnation action have filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report of damages. To the contrary, section 523.061’s direction that the trial judge determine heritage value imposes an independent obligation to do so, without regard to whether exceptions have been filed. But, here, Respondent was unable to determine heritage value because he had failed to ask the commissioners to determine whether the property had been owned by the White family for fifty years or more. A finding of such ownership is a factual prerequisite to a finding of heritage value. Further, section 528.039.3 is specific that this finding must be made by the commissioners or the jury; it does not give the judge the authority to make the determination of years of ownership where, as here, the judge should have, but did not, request the commissioners to so determine.
This Court, therefore, directs Respondent to issue an amended order to the commissioners directing them to determine whether Relators’ property has been in the White family for fifty years or more. Respondent then should determine Rela-tors’ motion requesting that heritage value be added to the damages found by the commissioners to determine just compensation, without regard to whether exceptions have been filed.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Relators, the C.F. White Family Partnership and Lupton Living Trust, own 45 acres of land in Independence, Missouri. Through condemnation, the city of Independence sought 15 of those acres. Rela-tors allege that the property has been in the White family for more than fifty years. On October 30, 2007, Respondent entered an order of condemnation and appointed commissioners to determine the value of the property taken. He instructed the commissioners to:
meet, qualify according to law, view the property after providing no less than ten (10) days notice to the parties prior to the viewing and forthwith return, under oath, to the Circuit Court Administrator, their report of such assessment of net damages, if any, which the Defendants may sustain by reason of the appropriation, taking into consideration the benefits to be derived by the owners, as well as the damages sustained, and setting forth and stating the amount of net damages allowed the said Defendants, together with a specific description of the property for which such damage was assessed.
In their report, the commissioners assessed the damages for taking Relators’ property at $1,415,000. Their report also states:
The commissioners herein state they have not made a determination whether a homestead taking has occurred or ivhether heritage value is payable and the amount of the award for each foregoing parcel does not include any amount for a homestead taking or for heritage value.
(emphasis added). Relators thereafter moved for a determination whether the property qualifies for heritage value and filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report. The City also filed exceptions. Respondent then issued his order stating that he “decline[d] to rule on Defendant’s Motion for Assessment of Heritage Value at this time by reason of the filing of exceptions,” which would necessitate a jury trial to determine damages.
Believing that sections 523.039 and 523.061 entitle them to a determination of [572]*572the heritage value of their property and payment of just compensation into the court regardless whether exceptions are filed, Relators petitioned this Court to issue a writ of prohibition directing Respondent to determine the heritage value of their property and to award them just compensation.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Prohibition is an original remedial writ brought to confine a lower court to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Lebanon School Dist. R-III v. Winfrey, 183 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Mo. banc 2006). This Court has the authority to “issue and determine original remedial writs.” Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 4.1. A writ of prohibition is appropriate to preserve “the orderly and economical administration of justice,”2 or where there is “an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review by this Court, and the aggrieved party may suffer considerable hardship and expense as a consequence of the erroneous decision.”3 Where, as here, issuance of the writ depends on the interpretation of a statute, this Court reviews the statute’s meaning de novo. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 908 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Mo. banc 1995). In so doing, this Court’s primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Relevant Statutory Provisions Governing Atvard of Just Compensation for Property with Heritage Value
Missouri’s Constitution provides that “private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.” Mo. Const, art. I, sec. 26. In the absence of a constitutional definition of “just compensation,” this Court has defined it as:
what a reasonable buyer would give who was willing but did not have to purchase, and what a seller would take who was willing but did not have to sell.... The measure of damages for the taking is to be determined as of the time of the taking.
In re Armory Site in Kansas City, 282 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Mo.1955) (citations omitted). In 2006, the legislature enacted a statutory definition of just compensation:
Just compensation for condemned property shall be ...
(1) An amount equivalent to the fair market value of such property;
(2) For condemnations that result in a homestead taking, an amount equivalent to the fan- market value of such property multiplied by one hundred twenty-five percent; or
(3) For condemnations of property that result in any taking that prevents the owner from utilizing property in substantially the same manner as it was currently being utilized on the day of the taking and involving property owned within the same family for fifty or more years, an amount equivalent to the sum of the fair market value and heritage value....
Sec 523.039 (emphasis added). “The property owner shall have the burden of proving to the commissioners or jury that the [573]*573property has been owned within the same family for fifty or more years.” Id. “Heritage value” is defined in section 523.001.2 as:
the value assigned to any real property, including but not limited to real property owned by a business enterprise with fewer than one hundred employees, that has been owned within the same family for fifty or more years, such value to he fifty percent of fair market value.
(emphasis added). Thus, heritage value is the additional value given to property that has been held within the same family for fifty or more years. If the taking prevents the owner of such property from utilizing the property in substantially the same manner as it currently is being utilized, the result under section 523.089 is that the amount of the heritage value shall be added to fair market value to determine just compensation.
B. The Filing of Exceptions Does Not Moot the Court’s Duty to Determine Heritage Value.
Relators claim that the condemned property has been in them family for more than fifty years and that just compensation for it requires payment of the total of the property’s fair market value plus its “heritage value.” Respondent did not reach this issue because he believed that once either party filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report, that filing mooted his statutory duty to determine whether the property had heritage value and whether that value should be added to the damages found by the commissioners to determine just compensation. This Court disagrees. Section 523.061 unambiguously states:
After the filing of the commissioners’ report pursuant to section 523.040, the circuit judge presiding over the condemnation proceeding shall apply the provisions of section. 523.039 . and shall determine •whether heritage value is payable and shall increase the commissioners’ award to provide for the additional compensation due where ... heritage value applies, in accordance with the just compensation provisions of section 523.039. If a jury trial of exceptions occurs under section 523.060, the circuit judge presiding over the condemnation proceeding shall apply the provisions of section 523.039 and shall determine ... whether heritage value is payable and shall increase the jury verdict to provide for the additional compensation due ... where heritage value applies, in accordance with the just compensation provisions of section 523.039.
Id. (emphasis added).
The plain meaning of the italicized language just quoted is that upon the filing of the commissioners’ report, the judge “shall” apply the provisions of section 523.039 and “shall” add heritage value and increase the commissioners’ award to provide for additional compensation if it so finds. The statute nowhere makes this duty conditional on no party filing exceptions. Indeed, were it to do so, it could cause a party to file frivolous exceptions merely to delay the determination of heritage value until after a jury trial. Rather, the first clause of section 523.061 requires a determination of whether heritage value is payable and an increase in the commissioners’ awrard appropriate, and the second sets forth how to proceed in a jury trial of any exceptions filed.
Respondent is correct that if the jury awards a different amount of damages than did the commissioners, the trial court then would have to apply its heritage value determination to a different damages figure. This Court disagrees that this minor duplication of effort, however, provides a basis to ignore the clear intent of the [574]*574legislature as expressed in the statute. See State v. Rowe, 63 S.W.3d 647, 650 (Mo. banc 2002) (court cannot, under the guise of discerning legislative intent, rewrite statute, but must apply plain meaning of clear, unambiguous statute). Moreover, the determination that heritage value is payable might cause a landowner to withdraw its exceptions, and the contrary determination might cause the condemning authority to do likewise. It is up to the legislature, not this Court, to weigh these and other considerations in determining what duties to impose on the court and the commissioners or jury.
C. Section 523.039(3) gives the Commissioners and Jury Authority to Determine Whether the Fifty-Year Ownership Requirement is Met.
Although Respondent erred in refusing to determine whether Relators’ property qualified for heritage value simply because exceptions were filed, this does not in itself entitle Relators to the order they request directing Respondent to determine whether the property has been in the White family for fifty years or more and, if so, whether it qualifies for heritage value. Section 523.039.3 is explicit that “the property owner shall have the burden of 'proving to the commissioners or jury that the property has been owned within the same family for fifty or more years.” Sec. 523.039.3 (emphasis added). Section 523.061 then provides that the judge shall apply the provisions of section 523.039 in determining whether heritage value should be added to the damages found by the commissioners in determining just compensation. Sec. 523.061.
Here, the commissioners were not asked to, and expressly stated in their report that they did not, determine whether the property had been in the White family for fifty years or more.4 The trial court, therefore, had no factual basis on which to make a determination whether Relators’ property qualified for heritage value or whether that value should be added to the damages awarded in determining just compensation.
Relators suggest that it is a simple matter for Respondent to make the determination of how long the property has been held by the owner’s family, and that it makes more sense for the judge to determine both that issue and whether the property otherwise qualifies for heritage value, than to have the first issue determined by the commissioners and the latter by the judge.
It is not up to this Court to determine what procedure would be most efficacious; rather, it is our duty to determine what procedure the relevant statutes require. Here, section 523.039.3 unambiguously puts solely in the hands of the commissioners or jury the determination of whether the property has been owned within the same family for fifty or more years. Id. The trial judge has no authority to make that determination in their stead.
Respondent did not err in refusing to determine heritage value absent a determination of length of ownership by the commissioners or jury. But, Respondent did err in failing to direct the commissioners to determine whether the property in question had been in the White [575]*575family for fifty years or more, as he should have done under section 523.039.3 in this circumstance. “It is the province of the court which appoints the Commissioners to inform them of them duties and responsibilities and to declare the law to them.” State ex rel. State Highway Com. v. Klipsch, 365 S.W.2d 76, 81 (Mo.App.1963).5 Absent a direction to do so by the court, the commissioners had no authority to determine how long the White Family had owned the property, as they implicitly recognized in their report. This improperly deprived Relators of the opportunity to have this issue determined by the commissioners as provided in section 523.039.3.6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court makes its writ permanent as modified. Respondent shall direct the commissioners to issue an amended report that includes a determination whether the property has been in the White family for fifty years or more in addition to their determination of damages. Upon receipt of that amended report, Respondent shall determine Relators’ motion asserting that the property qualifies for heritage value, which should be added to damages to determine just compensation.
PRICE, TEITELMAN, RUSSELL and WOLFF, JJ., and HOFF, Sp.J., concur.
BRECKENRIDGE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed.
FISCHER, J., not participating.