Ajootian v. Director of Public Works

• Decision Date: 04 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 9971,9971
• Citation: 90 R.I. 96,155 A.2d 244
• Parties: George AJOOTIAN et ux. v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS for the State of Rhode Island. Ex.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 244

155 A.2d 244

90 R.I. 96

George AJOOTIAN et ux. v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS for the State of Rhode Island.

Ex. No. 9971.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Nov. 4, 1959.

George Ajootian, Providence, Albert Elliot Sarkisian, North Providence, for petitioners.

Guy E. Gallone, Chief Counsel, John E. Graham, III, Providence, for respondent.

POWERS, Justice.

This is a petition under Public Laws 1953, chapter 3105, sec. 11, for the assessment of damages caused through the taking by eminent domain on August 27, 1957 of the petitioners' real property by the state for freeway purposes. The condemnation was effected pursuant to the provisions of said Public Laws and General Laws 1938, chap. 75, § 2, as amended. The case was heard by a superior court justice sitting with a jury and resulted in an award of $8,550 plus interest. The petitioners' motion for a new trial was heard and denied. The case is before us on their exception to the denial of that motion and on certain other exceptions to rulings during the course of the trial.

The property in question was a two-and-one-half story wooden frame dwelling situated on a lot of land consisting of 6,279 square feet and located at the northeast corner of Rosedale street and Huntington avenue in the city of Providence. There were three rental units. Two of them, the first and second floors, were occupied at the time petitioners purchased the property early in 1954 for the sum of $8,000, but on August 27, 1957, the date on which the property in question was taken, only the second floor was rented. The testimony is in conflict as to the amount of the rentals. The petitioner husband testified that when occupied he received $35 a month each for the first and second floors and that for the third floor the rental was $30 a month.

William E. Coyle, Jr., testifying as a real estate expert on behalf of the state, stated that on information received by him to the effect that in each instance the rental of the first and second floors was $25 a month, computed the fair market value to be $6,500. This witness also reached that same figure by using two other methods of computation, namely, an analysis of 150 sales of comparable property in the Cranston-Providence area and the cost of reproduction less depreciation. He further testified that his estimate was based on the poor condition of the property at the time of the taking. He stated that he assumed the property had been permitted to run down because the taking by the state was common knowledge for some time prior to the condemnation, and for this reason he felt that the true market value was $8,200. He also stated that he had been instructed by the state to resolve every question of doubt in favor of the property owner.

Antonio Mancini, who testified on behalf of petitioners as a real estate expert, stated that in his opinion the property was worth $10,500 to $11,000. He based his opinion on the asking price for comparable property in the neighborhood, the tax value on the land and the layout of this particular house. Mr. Mancini was thoroughly familiar with the house, being the person from whom petitioners purchased the property. He also testified that if the property were put to its full potential use, that is, for business, it would have a fair market value of $14,000.

Charles F. Kurtz, another real estate expert who testified on behalf of petitioners, gave as his opinion that the fair market value of the property in question was $10,500, basing his opinion on his judgment, or as he stated, 'I use my judgment as to whatever it is. I don't go any other way. I don't see how I could do it any other way.'

The bill of exceptions alleges six grounds of error. The petitioners neither briefed nor argued the second and fourth exceptions, both of them evidentiary in nature, and under our well-established rule these are deemed to be waived. The remaining exceptions are: First, to the overruling of their exception to the granting of a view; third, to the refusal of the trial justice to admit an executed lease of the real estate marked petitioners' exhibit 1 for identification; fifth, to the admission of a photograph of the property marked respondent's exhibit A; and sixth, to the refusal of the trial justice to grant petitioners' motion for a new trial.

For reasons which are obvious we shall first consider petitioners' third and fifth exceptions.

The petitioners' witness Mancini offered to testify that sometime prior to the condemnation there had been a lease executed between him and the Texas Oil Company which had been canceled by mutual agreement prior to the sale of the property to petitioners. Counsel for the state duly objected to this line of questioning and his objection was sustained. However, the petitioners introduced the lease for purposes of identification, but their motion to introduce it as a full exhibit was denied on the grounds that it was purely speculative and as such was inadmissible. It was the denial of this motion on which petitioners base their third exception. We have carefully reviewed the transcript and are of the opinion that the ruling of the trial justice was not erroneous. No competent evidence being offered to show that the lease had not been canceled for any one of a number of reasons, it was highly speculative and therefore petitioners' motion was properly denied. This...