Applefeld v. City of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 24 June 1919
• Docket Number: 22.
• Citation: 107 A. 347,134 Md. 528
• Parties: APPLEFELD v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

107 A. 347

134 Md. 528

APPLEFELD v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE.

No. 22.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 24, 1919

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; James M. Ambler, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Condemnation proceedings by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore wherein an award was made to Louis Applefeld, and he appeals. Ruling reversed, and new trial awarded.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, and ADKINS, JJ.

Jacob J. H. Mitnick and James J. Lindsay, both of Baltimore (Louis Mitnick, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

George Arnold Frick, of Baltimore (S. S. Field, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

URNER J.

As the result of a condemnation proceeding in the Baltimore city court, the appellant was awarded $13,000 for certain property required by the city as part of the public reservation known as the Civic Center. On this appeal the principal question to be decided relates to the exclusion of evidence offered by the appellant as to the structural value of the buildings on the land condemned. The appellant owned a leasehold estate in the property subject to an irredeemable ground rent of $150 per annum. The condemnation was in fee simple, and the total amount awarded by the inquisition returned by the jury was $16,500, which included an allowance of $3,000 to the owners of the reversion, and $500 to a tenant, who was in possession of part of the property for a term which was soon to expire.

The lot of ground affected by the condemnation extends from Gay street on the west to Frederick street on the east, and is improved with buildings fronting on those streets and used for store and warehouse purposes. On behalf of the city, two real estate experts testified that the total value of the property in fee simple was $16,500, and another estimated it at $16,000. The reversion was valued at $3,000 on the basis of a capitalization of the ground rent at 5 per cent. The only witness for the city who appears from the record to have testified in detail as to the elements of the value of the property estimated the land to be worth $8,500 and the buildings $7,400.

In addition to the appellant's own testimony that he bought the property about 13 years ago for $8,000, subject to the annual ground rent of $150, and that five years later he spent from $10,000 to $12,000 in improving the buildings, and that he considers his leasehold interest in the property to be now worth between $28,000 and $30,000, two witnesses were produced on his behalf who testified as to the value of the land alone; one of them estimating it at $9,712, and the other at $9,571 subject to the ground rent. An effort was later made by the appellant to prove the value of the buildings by having an expert builder testify as to the cost of their reproduction with a due allowance for depreciation. The attempt to introduce this evidence was opposed by the city, and its objection was sustained.

In the case of McGaw v. Baltimore, 131 Md. 430, 102 A. 544 where the admissibility of evidence of structural value was involved, we held that such value may be proved, with a due allowance for depreciation, as reflecting upon the market value of the land condemned, provided the buildings are well adapted to the land and its surroundings, and their structural value represents a fairly proportionate enhancement of the market value of the land. The principle of the rule which has thus been so recently stated by this court...