(dissenting) — I find, on this record, that there is no reversible error. By holding otherwise, the majority overturns decades of precedent.
I
The trial court erred in admitting the feed mill testimony, but its error is not reversible. That testimony, though inadmissible, is inadmissible for reasons not given by the State. By finding reversible error, the majority ignores the long-standing rule that evidentiary reversals require a legally sufficient objection.
The State objected to the feed mill evidence solely because the feed mill is located on leased land.1 That, however, does not indicate the testimony is inadmissible. Rather, the testimony is inadmissible because the feed mill was not condemned, does not constitute realty, and because its value is not related to the value of the land actually taken.
*130Our prior cases hold that evidentiary objections must have enough specificity to apprise both the court and the adversary of the claimed error. State v. Thacker, 94 Wn.2d 276, 282, 616 P.2d 655 (1980); State v. Boast, 87 Wn.2d 447, 451, 553 P.2d 1322 (1976). The grounds for the objection must be presented "so that the judge may understand the question raised and the adversary may be afforded an opportunity to remedy the claimed defect.'" Boast, at 451, quoting Presnell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 60 Wn.2d 671, 675, 374 P.2d 939 (1962).
When an objection is so indefinite as not to call the court's attention to the real reason for the testimony's inadmissibility, error may not be based upon the overruling of the objection.
(Italics mine.) Boast, at 451, quoting Kull v. Department of Labor & Indus., 21 Wn.2d 672, 682-83, 152 P.2d 961 (1944). Accord, Coleman v. Montgomery, 19 Wash. 610, 53 P. 1102 (1898).
As for a motion in limine, the same requirements apply. In Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Constr. Co., 87 Wn.2d 85. 91, 549 P.2d 483 (1976), we stated:
[T]he trial court should grant such a motion if it describes the evidence which is sought to be excluded with sufficient specificity to enable the trial court to determine that it is clearly inadmissible under the issues as drawn or which may develop during the trial ... To enable the court to make such a determination prior to trial and "out of context" the moving party should provide a memorandum of authorities showing that the evidence is inadmissible. If the court does not have the benefit of legal arguments, it can hardly be said to have abused its discretion if it denies a motion asking it to rule on the admissibility of evidence before it knows what the issues and circumstances are.
In this case, both the motion in limine and the trial objections technically conformed to the above requirements. The challenged evidence was unambiguously identified and reasons as well as authority were provided. The problem, however, is that the reasons and cited authority *131do not render the evidence inadmissible.
The feed mill is relevant to the compensation award only if it enhances the value of the land taken or is a compensable item itself. Bradley v. State, 73 Wn.2d 914, 442 P.2d 1009 (1968); North Coast R.R. v. Kraft Co., 63 Wash. 250, 115 P. 97 (1911); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Gray, 81 N.M. 399, 467 P.2d 725 (1970); United States v. Jaramillo, 190 F.2d 300 (10th Cir. 1951). As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, the value of the feed mill is not relevant to the former determination, for what the mill is worth does not tend to prove the degree to which its presence enhances the value of the land taken. See State v. Demos, 94 Wn.2d 733, 619 P.2d 968 (1980). Evidence is relevant only if it tends to prove a fact or theory to be established. Demos, supra; Ladley v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 73 Wn.2d 928, 934, 442 P.2d 983 (1968). Since the State did not object on these grounds, it cannot now assert that error. Boast, supra; Bolster v. Stocks, 13 Wash. 460, 43 P. 532 (1896).
The State's only objection was that the leasehold made the mill noncompensable. But, unless the leased land or the mill was actually condemned, the fact that the mill is on leased land is completely irrelevant. As already stated, the mill is compensable only if the State deprives its owner of its use or possession. Short of that, it makes no difference where the mill is located, except insofar as its location augments the value of the land actually taken.
In this case, the mill was not technically condemned. The owner retains its use and possession. And if it were constructively condemned (in that it will become valueless after the feedlots are taken), it is still noncompensable because it constitutes personal property.2 Personal prop*132erty is not compensable, for condemnation awards cover only land, buildings, and fixtures. Bradley v. State, supra; North Coast R.R. v. Kraft Co., supra.
Hence, the leasehold objection was completely beside the point. "Leasehold" is not a talismanic word. For some reason, though, the majority fails to realize that. Consequently, after today, virtually any evidentiary objection will preserve the error.
I therefore believe that the State, inasmuch as it failed to make an adequate objection, is not entitled to a reversal.
II
The majority contends, without citing any authority, that it was reversible error to permit testimony as to the "before and after” values of only a portion of the entire tract.
The proper measure of compensation is the difference between the "before and after" fair market values of the entire tract. Idaho & W. Ry. v. Coey, 73 Wash. 291, 131 P. 810 (1913); State v. Sherrill, 13 Wn. App. 250, 534 P.2d 598, review denied, 86 Wn.2d 1002 (1975). Despite that, we have repeatedly stated that if there is some competent evidence which permits the application of the proper rule, it is not reversible to introduce evidence as to the value of separate tracts. Coey, at 295; In re Mercer Street, Seattle, 55 Wash. 116, 104 P. 133 (1909). The majority, however, totally fails to acknowledge this.
In this case, the State introduced evidence from several witnesses as to the "before and after" values for the entire tract, and one of the condemnees testified as to the before *133value of the whole property and how the condemnation would affect it. He testified:
Q . . . I have to ask you in the before situation what do you think that your place is worth?
A Are you talking about the feed lot or the whole?
Q No, the whole thing. ...
A Well, I believe the whole Evans' Brothers holdings in this particular mapping arrangement here is probably worth a million to a million, two.
Q . . . [W]hat do you think your property, again, all of it, will be worth afterwards, after the highway is built?
A Well, I think it will be diminished by the worth of the feed lot, and it is anything connected directly with the feed lot.
Q All right, and how much in dollars? . . .
A ... I think that feed lot is worth $450,000 right now.
Q And what will it be worth after this freeway goes through in your opinion, Don?
A I don't believe we'll have a feed lot.
Q . . . Do you feel that it will have any market value? Do you think any willing buyer informed who is not compelled to buy would be interested in buying that feed lot?
A No, sir.
Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 464-65. Also, the jury was properly instructed as to the rule to apply.3 Since the jury was properly instructed, and given that all the essential figures were presented, the error is not reversible. By concluding otherwise, the majority acts in disregard of our prior cases.
Ill
The majority additionally concludes that it was reversible error not to give WPI 150.11. Interestingly, the failure to use that instruction has never until this case constituted *134error. State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 416 P.2d 350 (1966); Renton v. Scott Pac. Terminal, Inc., 9 Wn. App. 364, 512 P.2d 1137 (1973). Yet, the majority believes, again without citing any authority, that the confused record required it. A confused record, however, has never been the test for erroneous instructions. Instead, the test has been whether the given instructions, when read as a whole, were prejudicial. Id.
While none of the instructions in this case even mention speculative damages, the court did instruct the jury to award compensation only for the difference between the "before and after" fair market values. See instruction No. 8. And it defined "fair market value" as
the amount in cash which a well-informed buyer, willing but not obliged to buy the property, would pay, and which a well-informed seller, willing but not obligated to sell it, would accept, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied.
(Italics mine.) Instruction No. 9.
I do not believe a "well-informed buyer" would consider speculative or remote damages. Moreover, the instruction implies that only reasonable effects should be recognized. Consequently, the absence of WPI 150.11, in light of the other instructions, was not prejudicial. That has been our result before and this record does not require otherwise.
For these reasons, I dissent.4
Brachtenbach, C.J., and Stafford and Dolliver, JJ., concur with Utter, J.
Reconsideration denied December 17, 1981.
The motion in limine simply asked for the exclusion of "[a]ny evidence or opinion which includes any lands not owned by the respondents in defining the single larger parcel for the purpose of determining just compensation in this action." That was also the only objection made at trial.
Under existing Washington law, the feed mill is personal property. An item is a compensable fixture, rather than personalty, when (1) actually annexed to the realty, (2) applied to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty with which it is connected is appropriated, and (3) the party making the annexation intends it to be a permanent accession to the freehold. Oden v. Seattle, 72 Wn.2d 221, 432 P.2d 642 (1967); Filley v. Christopher, 39 Wash. 22, 80 P. 834 (1905).
*132The respondents lacked the requisite intent to make this feed mill a fixture. The feed mill, alleged to be worth $250,000, is located on a leasehold which "either party may terminate ... at any time upon giving the other party not less than thirty (30) days written notice of such termination ...” (Exhibit 9, item 13). And upon termination of the lease any "structures and property [belonging to the lessee and not removed] shall become the property of Lessor ..." (Exhibit 9, item 14). Moreover, the respondents admitted that the mill is personalty. The value of the mill, the inexpensiveness of moving it, and the terminable nature of the lease indicate the respondents neither intended to make the mill a permanent accession to the land nor considered it anything other than personal property.
instruction No. 8 provides in pertinent part:
"'Just compensation' is the difference between the fair market value of the entire property before the acquisition and the fair market value of the remainder after the acquisition measured as of the date of the trial."
As to the other issues raised by the parties, but not discussed by the majority, I find no reversible error.