State Roads Commission v. Kuenne

• Decision Date: 20 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. 431,431
• Citation: 213 A.2d 567,240 Md. 232
• Parties: STATE ROADS COMMISSION of Maryland v. Raymond Emil KUENNE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 232

240 Md. 232

213 A.2d 567

STATE ROADS COMMISSION of Maryland v. Raymond Emil KUENNE.

No. 431.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 20, 1965.

Edward W. Kreutzer, Sp. Atty., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. and Joseph D. Buscher, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Jerrold V. Powers, Upper Marlboro (James R. Bucher and Sasscer, Clagett & Powers, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER, and McWILLIAMS, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

This appeal from the entry of a judgment of condemnation absolute on a special verdict in the form of an inquisition is based on the claim that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied the motion for the condemnor to strike the answer the condemnee made to a question which was not admissible.

The appellant-condemnor is the State Roads Commission of Maryland. The appellee-condemnee is Raymond E. Kuenne. The condemned property, to be used in the construction and maintenance of the 'Capital Beltway,' was a part of a 128.5 acre farm located on Brightseat Road in Prince George's County. Of the 88.9 acres acquired, 15.07 acres were required for the right of way and the remaining 73.83 acres were taken because they were landlocked and of no use to the property owner. Since it was conceded that the taking was necessary and proper, the only question for the jury to determine was the fair market value of the property taken on the date of acquisition--November 21, 1962.

The appraisers agreed that the highest and best use of the property would have been for single family residential development. The two appraisers for the commission testified that the total fair market value of the property at the time of acquisition was $320,000 and $311,000, respectively, or approximately $3600 and $3500 per acre. The appraiser for the property owner valued the property taken at $329,000, or approximately $3700 per acre.

All of the appraisers relied on the 'market data' approach to determine fair market value. None of the comparable sales in the area, however, on which the evaluations were based, were made as of the date of acquisition. The closest 'before' sale appears to have been on November 1, 1962, and the closest 'after' sale was on December 29, 1962. One of the appraisers testified that the area was a very dynamic one and that land values fluctuated so rapidly that unless market data was obtainable at the time of taking, it would be difficult to fix fair market value with certainty.

The owner was the last witness to testify. He was asked if he had an opinion as to the fair value of his property. He replied that it was worth approximately $6000 per acre. No objection was made to the question or answer, but when counsel asked him why it was worth that much, the owner replied 'because this here, that was the offer.' Counsel for the commission promptly moved that the answer be stricken, but the motion was denied.

The jury determined that the property taken had a value of $356,000 or approximately $4000 per acre, which was in excess of the valuations placed thereon by the experts, but was lower than the value stated by the owner himself.

It is clear that the lower court was in error when it refused to strike out the remark of the condemnee to the effect that his estimate of the value was based on an 'offer.' While the property owner has a right to voice his opinion of the market value of his property in a condemnation case, the established rule in this State is that evidence of an offer to purchase real property is not admissible to prove its value. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ring, 102 Md. 677, 62 A. 801 (1906); Horner v. Beasley, 105 Md. 193, 65 A. 820 (1907); Grantmyre v. Darago, 196 Md. 555, 77 A.2d 148 (1950).

This does not necessarily mean that this case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. The question here, it seems to us, is whether the error was so prejudicial as to require reversal. We think it was not. Aside from showing the commission of error, which as we have said was evident, the burden is on the complaining party to show that the error had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case. Rippon v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 213 Md. 215, 131 A.2d 695 (1957); Adams v. Benson, 208 Md. 261, 117 A.2d 881 (1955); Baltimore Transit Co. v. State for Use of Castranda, 194 Md. 421, 71 A.2d 442 (1950).

In Hance v. State Roads Commission, 221 Md. 164, 156 A.2d 644 (1959), a recent case arising out of a condemnation proceeding, this Court, per Prescott, J., now C. J., had occasion to say, at p. 176, 156 A.2d at p. 650:

'Courts are reluctant to set aside verdicts for errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence unless they cause substantial injustice. This is especially true in condemnation proceedings. Such cases usually consume much time in trial, and are expensive in nature. As a rule, they are determined by a myriad of different items of evidence. The exclusion or admission of small items of evidence of doubtful materiality are not likely to be of great importance in the outcome of the case, and most courts refuse to set aside a verdict in cases of this kind, for error in the rulings on questions of evidence, unless, as indicated above, substantial prejudice be shown.'

Accord, 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain (1962 Supp. 1965), § 18.1.

We are aware that moneywise there is a substantial difference between the total award of the jury--$356,000 or $4000 per acre--and the average market value fixed by the expert witnesses--$320,000 or $3600 per acre. On a percentage basis, however, the difference is slight. We are therefore not convinced that the error committed by the trial court substantially prejudiced the condemnor in this case. Nor can we say that the jury award of $4000 per acre was clearly excessive or substantially unjust when that figure is compared with the average expert valuation of $3600 per acre, especially when the higher figure of $4000 is compared with the $6000 per acre the owner intimated he had been offered. Had the jury award been $6000 per acre or anywhere near that figure, it would be obvious that the error was prejudicial. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, however, where there was evidence to the effect that it was difficult to state with certainty a fair market value at the time of acquisition due to the fact that land values in the area were constantly rising, and where the jurors in viewing the property had an opportunity to judge for themselves what the land was fairly worth under the conditions then existing, we think the prejudice to the condemnor, if indeed there was any, was negligible. Other than this, there is little doubt that the commission will be able to recoup a substantial part of what it had to pay for the condemned property should it decide to sell the...