155 Conn.App. 181
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- DOT condemned a 0.44-acre triangular commercial parcel in New Britain used as an automotive sales/repair site; DOT initially assessed damages at $125,000.
- Cheriha, LLC sought reassessment under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-76; a two-day hearing was held with testimony from three appraisers and the property owner; judge trial referee Aronson increased the award to $243,840.
- Defendant’s experts (Kerin, Arotsky) used sales-comparison approaches and opined values of $320,000 and $340,000; plaintiff’s appraiser (LoMonte) testified to $125,000 using sales comparables.
- Defendant attempted to admit a 2010 letter of intent from Ahmed (proposed purchaser) valuing the site at $850,000; the court excluded Ahmed’s testimonial valuation as expert opinion but admitted the letter and owner testimony.
- The court relied on two comparable sales (one from Kerin, one from LoMonte) and averaged unit prices to reach $243,840 as fair market value.
- Defendant appealed, raising three evidentiary/weight objections: exclusion of Ahmed’s testimony, reliance on LoMonte’s appraisal despite zoning error, and alleged failure to credit owner Cheriha’s valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by excluding Ahmed’s personal testimony about a $850,000 letter of intent | Ahmed’s testimony was not necessary; the court properly treats owner and documentary evidence; expert qualification required for valuation testimony | Ahmed should have been allowed to testify to his own intent and offer as evidence of market value and highest/best use | Exclusion upheld: Ahmed’s proposed testimony sought to offer valuation/expert opinion without qualifications; letter and owner testimony were admitted, no prejudice shown |
| Whether the court erred in relying on LoMonte’s appraisal after he misidentified zoning | LoMonte’s zoning mistake did not affect his selection criteria; he used highest-and-best-use (automotive) comparables and the court credited those aspects | Zoning error made LoMonte’s methodology flawed and omitted higher-value comparables, so his analysis should be disregarded | Reliance upheld: court permissibly used credible parts of LoMonte’s sales-comparison and other comparable sales; methodology similar to defendant’s experts |
| Whether the court failed to consider owner Cheriha’s testimony valuing the property at $850,000 | Court considered owner’s testimony and related offers; trial court need not recite every piece of evidence in its memorandum | Court ignored or gave inadequate weight to Cheriha’s firsthand valuation and offers | No error: trial court made independent valuation based on credible comparables; not required to recite or adopt owner’s opinion verbatim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. West Hartford, 167 Conn. 67 (establishes condemnee entitlement to just compensation)
- Colaluca v. Ives, 150 Conn. 521 (just compensation aims to place owner in same pecuniary position)
- Northeast Ct. Econ. Alliance, Inc. v. ATC P'ship, 256 Conn. 813 (market value measured by highest and best use at time of taking)
- Budney v. Ives, 156 Conn. 83 (market value defined by probable negotiated price)
- Branford v. Santa Barbara, 294 Conn. 785 (§13a-76 reassessment procedure described)
- Birnbaum v. Ives, 163 Conn. 12 (trial court’s duty to make independent determination of value)
- DiBella v. Widlitz, 207 Conn. 194 (role/qualification of expert appraisers)
- Misisco v. La Maita, 150 Conn. 680 (owner may testify to property value based on unique knowledge)
- United Techs. Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (highest-and-best-use is an expert appraisal concept)
- Moss v. New Haven Redev. Agency, 146 Conn. 421 (valuation is matter of opinion for trier; court may accept portions of expert methods)
- St. Joseph's Living Ctr., Inc. v. Windham, 290 Conn. 695 (clearly erroneous standard for reviewing factual findings)