City of Stamford v. Martha Huntley (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On March 5, 2010 the City condemned 1,063 square feet of land at 244 Cold Spring Road in connection with the improvement of the Cold Spring Road Bridge over the Rippowam River.   Additionally, the City took a temporary easement of 338 square feet adjacent to the condemned land to afford access to the construction site.   The temporary taking had a duration of 15 months.

The City presented an appraisal report supported by the expert testimony of Joseph Dondiego, a licensed appraiser with an MAI designation.   The owner, representing herself, presented no expert testimony but offered an appraisal report in lieu of testimony.   The court did not consider the report because of its obvious hearsay content.¹  The owner then testified giving her opinion of the value of the land taken and temporary easement.

“When, as in the present case, only a part of a tract of land is taken for the public use, ‘just compensation’ includes recovery for the part taken and recovery for any damages visited upon the remainder which result from the taking.   See, e.g., Meriden v. Highway Commissioner, 169 Conn. 655, 659.   In such a situation, damages are measured by determining the difference between the market value of the whole tract as it lay prior to the taking and the market value of what remained thereafter.  Andrews v. Cox, 129 Conn. 475, 478;  Lefebvre v. Cox, 129 Conn. 262, 265;  see Meriden v. Highway Commissioner, supra.   In determining the market value of a remainder after a partial taking, it is proper for the trier to consider all elements which are a natural and proximate result of the taking and which could legitimately affect the price a prospective purchaser would pay for the land.  Budney v. Ives, 156 Conn. 83, 88;  Holley v. Torrington, 63 Conn. 426, 433.”  (Alternate citations omitted.)  Bowen v. Ives, 171 Conn. 231, 236 (1976).

The parcel taken was part of a residential lot consisting of 9,664 square feet which is improved with a single-family dwelling in the R–7 1/2 zone (single-family on 7,500 square foot lots).   The taking does not render the lot non-conforming as to lot area.   The City's appraiser employed the market or “sales comparison approach” to determine the value of the property as it lay before the taking as compared to its value after the taking.²  The appraiser utilized prices buyers have recently paid for comparable building sites as well as comparable dwellings.   This resulted in a finding that the entire property with the improvement had a value of $333,000 before the taking and $322,000 after the taking for total damages $11,000.   With respect to the temporary easement, the appraiser determined a monthly value of the parcel by applying a “typical” rate of return of 8% to a per square value of $17.28 which he obtained from the primary appraisal.   He then multiplied the result by 15, the number of months during which the temporary easement was utilized by the city.   This exercise yielded a value of $1,200.   The court finds that this formula is fair and reasonable.

Based on the appraisal referred to above, the owner opined that the land taken and the temporary easement had a value of $30,000.   Her testimony, though competent, Miscisco v. La Manta, 150 Conn. 680 (1963), was not persuasive.   Thus the court finds that the value of the property before the taking was $333,000 and after the taking was $322,000 ($11,000) and the damages for the temporary easement are $1,200.

BY THE COURT

A. William Mottolese, J.T.R.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The document was marked for identification.   The face page reveals that the appraisal speaks as of September 13, 2011 when the taking date was March 5, 2010 and does not indicate compliance with the before and after rule..  FN1. The document was marked for identification.   The face page reveals that the appraisal speaks as of September 13, 2011 when the taking date was March 5, 2010 and does not indicate compliance with the before and after rule.

FN2. While the City's appraisal report speaks as of April 10, 2009 the appraiser updated the appraisal orally by stating that the values are the same as the taking date..  FN2. While the City's appraisal report speaks as of April 10, 2009 the appraiser updated the appraisal orally by stating that the values are the same as the taking date.

Mottolese, A. William, J.T.R.