Copyright Appraisal Institute Winter 2009In a condemnation action, comparable sales evidence is admissible to establish the condemned property's value regardless of whether the sales took place after the taking, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jerry Croskrey and Pamela Flowers (collectively, Plaintiffs) own parcels of land adjoining the Murray Springs Fish Hatchery in Libby, Montana, each consisting of approximately 20 acres. Both planned to develop their land into residential subdivisions, but before their final plans were approved, the federal government condemned several acres of both parcels to serve as a buffer zone around the fish hatchery. At the condemnation trial, the Plaintiffs sought to introduce comparable sales from nearby subdivisions on the issue of just compensation. However, the court refused to admit evidence of sales that occurred after the taking, finding mat such sales were not relevant to "what would be in the contemplation of a willing buyer and willing seller on the mandatory date of taking." Croskrey then testified, based on his experience as a real estate investor, that his property was worth $32,823 an acre; Flowers valued her property at $33,000 an acre, based on her experience as a real estate agent In contrast, the government's expert determined that the highest and best use of the parcels was as a single-family residence; he therefore valued Croskrey's entire parcel at $16,456 and Flower's parcel at $17,712, using pretaking sales of single-family sites. The jury ultimately awarded $18,535 to Croskrey and $19,065 to Flowers. The Plaintiffs appealed.
On review, the appellate court held that whether a potential comparable sale occurred before or after the taking is not relevant to its admissibility on the issue of just compensation, and a trial court should determine die sale's comparability in terms of the property's similarity to the condemned parcel. Furthermore, the court stated mat absent unusual circumstances, differences in the characteristics, location, and timing of comparable sales affect only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Because the jury awards were much closer to the government's valuations than to the Plaintiffs', the court found that the exclusion of the post-taking comparable sales was prejudicial. Accordingly, the court vacated the awards and remanded the case to the trial court witii directions to assess the comparability of each proffered comparable sale. The trial court decision was reversed.
United States v. 4.8 S Acres of Land
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
September 29, 2008
2008 WL 4380609 (9th Cir. 2008)
My Research
