Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/335/335mass189.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:07:10+00:00

Document:
NEWTON GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC. vs. MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY.
PETITION, filed in the Superior Court on August 12, 1955.
Richard H. Lee, (James K. Fitzpatrick with him,) for the petitioner.
Albert W. Wunderly, for the respondent.
damages of $46,710. The case was tried to a jury who found damages of $9,500. In the course of the trial there was testimony that "the highest and best use of the property was for a camp purpose." The trial judge, however, (a) excluded substantial testimony offered by the Girl Scouts to show the extent and character of the damage to this use of the property caused by the taking; (b) admitted certain evidence of a witness called by the Authority about a sale of land in the neighborhood, not developed for camping purposes, in which sale the witness had not participated; and (c), as we read the record, failed to charge, as requested by the Girl Scouts, in respect of certain principles of law, which the Girl Scouts claimed were applicable to assessing damages for a taking of this property, peculiarly adapted to a special purpose and having its highest value for that purpose. The Girl Scouts duly excepted to these rulings on evidence and to the judge's failure to charge as requested.
like this near Boston in the area out toward Framingham. The buildings [Note p192-1] of comparatively little value for ordinary residential purposes were of a character ideally adapted to and equipped for the charitable and educational uses for which they had been built, of giving wholesome rural recreational and educational opportunities to groups of young city dwellers.
for the diminution in the value of their land by reason of this loss. Barnes v. Commonwealth, 305 Mass. 339, 340 (depreciation of value of property by reason of loss of view).
The Girl Scouts, in presenting their case, sought to recover compensation for the essential destruction of their property for the purposes for which they had acquired, developed, and used it. There was evidence that camps of this type were not commonly bought and sold in the area. Consequently, the Girl Scouts were forced to prove damages by other means than evidence of comparable sales. The Authority was supported, in essence by all the trial judge's rulings, in maintaining the position that the measure of damages was market value, on a basis which gave inadequate attention to important elements of value. A substantial amount of evidence of the value of the property for the special uses for which the property was best adapted and had been used was excluded. The result was that the Girl Scouts were in major degree prevented from showing the real character and extent of the money loss which had been suffered.
329 Mass. 514, 517-518. Although its "value for any special purpose is not the test . . . it may be considered, with a view of ascertaining what the property is worth in the market for any use for which it would bring the most." Conness v. Commonwealth, 184 Mass. 541, 542-543. See Smith v. Commonwealth, 210 Mass. 259, 261; Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255.
Under the authorities already cited, the Girl Scouts, in their attempt to show loss of market value, were plainly entitled to present evidence bearing on every use to which the property was adapted, including (but not limited to) the specialized use for which the property was being employed effectively at the time of the taking. It was open to the Girl Scouts (a) to prove the value of the property for use by a charitable or religious organization or for a school group, and the extent to which the taking had injured or prevented that use; (b) to show the extent of the market, if any, for properties adapted for such use; (c) to establish the general basis on which such properties change hands when they do change hands, the various elements of value which are given weight by organizations naturally interested in the acquisition of such properties, and the methods by which such properties are usually acquired; and (d) to present evidence of other similar relevant factors.
for and use of comparable specialized properties by a particular industry or class of users or customers. The property may be of a character where, within fairly wide limits, geographical location has less effect on its value than its adaptability for a particular use. The properties may be of a type, not frequently bought or sold, but usually acquired by their owners and developed from the ground up, so that the cost of land plus the reproduction cost (less depreciation where appropriate) of improvements may be more relevant than in the ordinary case.
The practical problems inherent in the valuation of such properties have been recognized in the Massachusetts decisions, as well as in the authorities generally. Special opportunities for proof of value have long been afforded in cases where it is felt that there is no market value, in the sense in which, in most communities, market value is at all times reflected by a steady volume of sales of ordinary commercial and residential properties. The occasion for this difference in type of proof (permitting the use of valuation data other than those factors ordinarily bearing on market price) has been expressed in terms of absence of market value (see comprehensive discussion in Tigar v. Mystic River Bridge Authority, 329 Mass. 514, 517) or of market (see, for example, United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 374). The courts in these cases, however, may be doing no more than recognizing that more complex and resourceful methods of ascertaining value must be used where the property is unusual or specialized in character and where ordinary methods will produce a miscarriage of justice. In such cases, it is proper to determine market value from the intrinsic value of the property and from its value for the special purposes for which it is adapted and used. See Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d ed.) Section 12.32, especially at pages 134-136, and Sections 18.41 , 18.42; Jahr, Eminent Domain, Sections 71, 78, 82 (specialty uses), 83, 84 (properties of nonprofit organizations); Orgel, Valuation under Eminent Domain (2d ed.) Sections 30, 37-40, especially at pages 177-179, 181-183; Hanify, Damages in Eminent Domain, 34 B. U. L.
Rev. 146, 151-152; McCormick, Measure of Compensation in Eminent Domain, 17 Minn. L. Rev. 461, especially at pages 467-470.
for tax purposes, since the "property was adapted to a single use and its value depended entirely upon a continuance of that use"). See to same general effect Boston Gas. Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566.
It is, of course, true that, where there is no market value, in the sense of a steady current of sales of similarly used properties in the vicinity, the burden is on the owner to show that it is impossible to prove the value of the property without using some mode of ascertaining value which does not depend on market value in this sense of the term. See Tigar v. Mystic River Bridge Authority, 329 Mass. 514, 518. In the present case, however, the Girl Scouts had amply shown that camps of this type were not commonly bought and sold.
265 Mass. 270, 279. See Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & Providence Railroad, 215 Mass. 381, 390, and the discussion of a somewhat analogous problem in Muzi v. Commonwealth, ante, 101, 104-106. Although the trial judge is given a considerable range of discretion with respect to such testimony, here the effect of his consistent exclusion of evidence bearing on the specialized value of the property was "to deny to the owner the power of proving the real value of that property," in a situation where evidence of the value for the specialized purposes "given by persons who have knowledge thereof derived from experience in that business, must be admitted from the necessity of the case." See Cochrane v. Commonwealth, 175 Mass. 299, 302-303, where, with respect to land adapted to a mill site, it was also said, "no one can testify to that value by knowledge derived from the sale of lands in the neighborhood; they are not similar lands; nor by sales of mill sites for such purposes, for mill sites are not commonly bought and sold."
testimony might well have been received. However, as there must be a new trial in any event, it is not necessary to decide whether the judge exceeded his discretion in excluding the testimony.
A real estate witness, called by the Authority, who, from the record, does not appear to have had special experience in determining the value of the type of camp property here involved, was permitted to testify to the limited value of the property for conventional residential purposes. No objection was made to the admission of this evidence, but exception was taken to his being allowed to give the price at which a nearby property (not shown to have been similarly used for camp purposes) had been sold in 1951, at least three years before the taking, because the witness had only hearsay knowledge of the price paid in a transaction in which he had not participated. Although an expert witness may give the reasons for his opinion, even if gained from hearsay (Davenport v. Haskell, 293 Mass. 454, 459), this should be done in such terms that inadmissible hearsay is not introduced in a manner prejudicial to a party. Without producing a party to the sale, who could be subjected to cross-examination, direct testimony about the terms of a particular transaction should not have been admitted over objection. See Hunt v. Boston, 152 Mass. 168, 171; Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 195 Mass. 100, 108. See also by analogy Tigar v. Mystic River Bridge Authority, 329 Mass. 514, 519-520.
The Authority contends that the exceptions to the exclusion of testimony as to value cannot be considered, because of failure of counsel for the Girl Scouts to make an offer of proof. In effect two witnesses called by the Girl Scouts were erroneously prevented from testifying at all on the issue of value. In such cases, an offer of proof is not required. Muskeget Island Club v. Nantucket, 185 Mass. 303, 306. Old Silver Beach Corp. v. Falmouth, 266 Mass. 224, 226-227.
bought and sold in the vicinity, the measure of damages is not to be limited to market value, and the jury may consider its value for the special purpose for which it was used." This request was obviously based on Tigar v. Mystic River Bridge Authority, 329 Mass. 514, 517-518. The judge gave this instruction with a minor modification and then, after a colloquy with counsel, appeared to revoke it. Some confusion also may well have arisen as to the precise sense in which the term "market value" was being used by judge and counsel. We have not been given in the bill of exceptions a sufficient summary of the judge's charge to be sure in what sense the term had been defined by him. As the matter was left, the jury might well have been misled into believing that only market value for purposes of sale for residential or other conventional uses was to be considered. The judge should have made it plain that, in a case like this of a property primarily adapted for a specialized use and of a type not frequently bought or sold as such, the damages caused by the taking were not to be measured solely by the effect of the taking on the value of the property for ordinary real estate development; and that the value of the property for every reasonable present and potential use of the property was to be carefully considered, including the use of the property for the special purpose for which it had been constructed and was being employed by the Girl Scouts.
[Note p190-1] This statute has been amended in respects not here relevant. See Section 5 (k) for the Authority's powers with respect to land takings. See Opinion of the Justices, 330 Mass. 713, 721-725.
[Note p190-2] An award of $2 was made also for the taking of a drainage easement not here of importance. The practice of making nominal awards of this type, in cases where it is plain that damages are serious, for purposes of negotiating advantage or otherwise, is an obvious disregard of the legislative purpose behind G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 79, Section 6, to obtain an award of just compensation by fair initial administrative action. See Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d ed.) Section 25.5 at page 97. See also Worcester v. County Commissioners of Worcester, 100 Mass. 103, 105-106. Compare Wood v. Milton, 197 Mass. 531, 534. Action of the type taken by the Authority tends to coerce persons whose property has been taken to resort to litigation and to incur unnecessary expense, even though it does not invalidate the taking. See Broderick v. Department of Mental Diseases, 263 Mass. 124, 128; Shea v. Inspector of Buildings of Quincy, 323 Mass. 552, 557.
[Note p192-1] There were some twenty-six camp and service buildings on the property, most of them equipped with running water and other conveniences. An appropriate sanitary system had been provided and the buildings were supplied with electricity by underground cables. There was an open play area. Extensive repairs and improvements had been made to the buildings, beach and other facilities in recent years.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.