Carlock v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5185.,5185. |
| Citation | 53 F.2d 926 |
| Parties | CARLOCK v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
James A. Davis, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Leo A. Rover, Henry H. Glassie, A. G. Lambert, and A. H. Bell, Jr., all of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
This appeal is from an award of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in a condemnation proceeding brought under the Act of March 1, 1929 (45 Stat. 1415 40 USCA §§ 361-386).
Without stopping to review the preliminary proceedings, the case was set down for trial on October 14, 1929. The property involved in this appeal is lot 802, square 256, improved by premises 408 Thirteenth Street Northwest, in the city of Washington. The appellant is the owner of an estate for years under a written lease. After the taking of the testimony and the charge of the court to the jury, the jury returned a verdict for the owner of the property in the sum of $32,000, and allowed appellant nothing for the value of his lease.
Appellant's lease was to run for the term of ten years, from the 1st day of January, 1928, on a rental of $600 for the year 1928 and a like sum for the year 1929, thereafter the rental was increased annually on the ratio of $60 per year, culminating in the amount of $1,080 for the year 1937, or the last year of the lease. It also contained the following provision: "And it is further agreed that the parties of the second part in consideration of this lease hereby agree to remodel the said premises, according to plans and specifications agreed upon between the parties hereto, which plans and specifications may be modified by mutual agreement between the said parties, said improvements to become part and parcel of the said premises, 408 13th Street Northwest, Washington, D. C., and it is further agreed that the said repairs be commenced during the month of November, 1927, and completed, as far as practical, before the commencement of said tenancy January 1, 1928."
We are not impressed with the contention of counsel for the government to the effect that the tenant is not entitled to any consideration or remuneration for the improvements which he placed upon the premises, since the improvements revert to the owner at the termination of the lease. The expenditures for improvements undoubtedly were a part of the consideration entering into the contract for the leasing of the property, and presumably reduced to a considerable extent, at least the monthly rentals named in the lease. These expenditures for improvements were made by the tenant on the basis of the ten-year lease and the enjoyment of the benefits to be derived therefrom for that period. This does not mean that appellant is entitled to compensation for the cost of the improvements, but only to the extent that they have enhanced the market value of the lease over and above the obligations of the lease. To that extent they become an item of value to be considered in fixing the value of the lease. The only obligation that a purchaser of the lease would assume would be the making of certain repairs specified in the lease and the payment of the monthly rental for the use of the property in its improved condition. Less than two years of the lease had expired at the time the property was taken by the government. The purchaser of the lease on the open market would, therefore, derive the benefits of the improvements without additional expense for the unexpired eight years of the lease. It follows that these benefits are of equal value to appellant and should be considered in fixing the value of his lease. In other words, in determining the market value of the lease, after the expiration of two years, the value of the improvements to the premises for leasing purposes for the remaining eight years would be a proper matter for consideration.
It is a fundamental principle, governing condemnation proceedings, where several interests are involved, such as estates for life, or in remainder, or leaseholds, or in reversion, in the property to be condemned, all should be combined in determining the value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 70.39 Acres of Land
...residue of his term "would be its present money worth over and above the obligations of the lease * * *", Carlock v. United States, 1931, 60 App.D.C. 314, 53 F.2d 926, 928. This situation involving the fee taking must be distinguished from the situation involving the term taking. There the ......
-
Kansas Turnpike Project, In re, 40335
...justice to those owners would be subserved by it * * *.' See, also, Bogart v. United States, 10 Dir., 169 F.2d 210; Carlock v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 314, 53 F.2d 926; City of St. Louis v. Rossi, 333 Mo. 1092, 64 S.W.2d 600; Dye v. Midland Val. R. Co., 77 Kan. 488, 94 P. 785; Federal La......
-
Kansas Turnpike Project, In re
...In support of his position appellant cites the following authorities: Bogart v. United States, 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 210; Carlock v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 314, 53 F.2d 926; City of St. Louis v. Rossi, 333 Mo. 1092, 64 S.W.2d 600; Dye v. Midland Val. Railroad Co., 77 Kan. 488, 94 P. 785; Fe......
-
Town of Hempstead (Point Lookout in Vicinity of Sea Spray Drive East), Matter of, 1
...the market value of the leasehold (Matter of City of New York (Fairfield County Trust Co.), 19 A.D.2d 44, 241 N.Y.S.2d 44, Garlock v. United States, 53 F.2d 926). The traditional method of valuing a leasehold is to award the difference between the rental value of the leasehold for the unexp......