Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency
| Decision Date | 05 July 1961 |
| Citation | 172 A.2d 612,148 Conn. 513 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | George BENNETT et al. v. NEW HAVEN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Charles Henchel, New Haven, with whom was Morris W. Mendlesohn, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).
William L. F. Felstiner, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and BORDON *, JJ.
On May 19, 1958, the plaintiffs, owners of premises at 2-12 and 18-24 Congress Avenue in New Haven, applied to the Superior Court for a review of the statement of compensation filed by the defendant when it commenced proceedings to acquire the plaintiffs' property by eminent domain. See General Statutes § 8-132. The court appointed a state referee to make the review. The referee found the fair and reasonable value of all the property to be $148,580 and revised the statement of compensation accordingly. The plaintiffs' motion to correct the report was denied by the referee; an exception to the report was overruled by the court; the report was accepted and judgment was rendered thereon. The plaintiffs have appealed.
The property consists of two adjoining parcels of land with a building on each. The referee found the value of the land at 2-12 Congress Avenue to be $37,980, and the value of the land at 18-24 Congress Avenue to be $24,700. Thereafter, the value of the building on each parcel of land was reached by the application of the income approach method, one of the systems used by the real estate experts for the parties in arriving at their opinions of the fair market value of the property. Under this method of appraisal, the annual net income of the property is first ascertained. The value of the land is then determined and the income attributable to the land is found by figuring a fair return on the investment in the land. The result obtained is then deducted from the total net income, leaving as a balance the amount of income attributable to the building, which is then capitalized, thus reaching the value of the building. This method, adopted by the referee in this case, enabled him to fix the value of each building and the total evaluation of all the property.
The plaintiffs contend that there was no evidence to support the referee's finding of the value of the land. They claim that the value of the land could not be based upon the referee's own general knowledge without outside evidence to support it. While they do not directly attack the finding as to the value of the buildings, they do so indirectly, because the ultimate evaluation of the buildings would be incorrect if the basic evaluation of the land was unsound.
During the hearing, cross-examination of the defendant's expert was interrupted by the referee, who stated that he would disregard the testimony of the witness as to the value of the land. Because of this statement, the plaintiffs argue that the only evidence of land value which could be considered by the referee was that of their own expert and the evaluation made by the city assessors for tax purposes. The market value of the land as found by the referee was less than either of these evaluations. The plaintiffs therefore insist that the report of the referee should have been corrected by fixing the value at not less than the lower of the two values available from the evidence.
While it is true that the referee rejected the opinion of the defendant's expert, he also refused to accept the opinion of the plaintiffs' expert. Likewise, he stated that he did not feel bound to accept the value fixed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission of City of Stamford
...of expert opinion, the knowledge of the trier, and other circumstances in evidence bearing on value. See Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 148 Conn. 513, 516, 172 A.2d 612; Moss v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 146 Conn. 421, 425, 151 A.2d 693. In the present case both the plaint......
-
Commissioner of Transportation v. Danbury Road Assoc., No. FST CV 02 0192695 S (CT 3/3/2006)
...into account the divergent opinions expressed by the witnesses and the claims advanced by the parties." Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 148 Conn. 513, 516, 172 A.2d 612 (1961). Also, the visual observations of the premises by the trier are as important as evidence presented under......
-
Tandet v. Urban Redevelopment Commission of City of Stamford
...The report of Benedict was defective in this respect and the court erred in its reliance upon it. See Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 148 Conn. 513, 516, 172 A.2d 612 (1961). IV We now turn to the defendant's final claim, that the court erred in concluding that the parking garage......
-
Schnier v. Ives
...443, 451, 270 A.2d 680; Brothers, Inc. v. Ansonia Redevelopment Agency, 158 Conn. 37, 43, 255 A.2d 836; Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 148 Conn. 513, 516, 172 A.2d 612; Moss v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 146 Conn. 421, 425, 151 A.2d 693. No single method of valuation was co......