CO Code § 38-1-118 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal|Article 1 - Proceedings|Part 1 - Proceedings - Requirements and Limitations - Determination of Just Compensation|§ 38-1-118. Evidence Concerning Value of Property

 Any witness in a proceeding under articles 1 to 7 of this title, in any court of record of this state wherein the value of real property is involved, may state the consideration involved in any recorded transfer of property, otherwise material and relevant, which was examined and utilized by him in arriving at his opinion, if he has personally examined the record and communicated directly and verified the amount of such consideration with either the buyer or seller. Any such testimony shall be admissible as evidence of such consideration and shall remain subject to rebuttal as to the time and actual consideration involved and subject to objections as to its relevancy and materiality.   History. Source: L. 61: P. 376, § 7. CRS 53: § 50-1-22. L. 63: P. 478, § 5. C.R.S. 1963: § 50-1-21. History. Source: L. 61: P. 376, § 7. CRS 53: § 50-1-22. L. 63: P. 478, § 5. C.R.S. 1963: § 50-1-21.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Inverse Condemnation -- A Viable Alternative”, see 51 Den. L.J. 529 (1974).   Competence of witness not presumed. It will not be presumed that a witness is competent to give an opinion as to the value of property; rather, it must be shown that he has some peculiar means of forming an intelligent, correct judgment as to the value of the property in question or the effect upon it by a particular improvement beyond what is possessed by men generally. City & County of Denver v. Hinsey, 177 Colo. 178 , 493 P.2d 348 (1972).   Knowledge of witness may be derived from buying and selling, valuing, and managing real estate in the town or county where the particular property is situated or by reason of being acquainted with the property in the neighborhood where it is situated, especially if accompanied by a knowledge of sales of similar property. City & County of Denver v. Hinsey, 177 Colo. 178 , 493 P.2d 348 (1972).   Expert testimony need not be stricken where expert relied only in part on sales data he did not personally confirm but did not offer the data as direct evidence to support his opinion. Any impermissible impact that the unverifiable sales may have had on the expert's testimony was ameliorated by striking evidence of the comparable property that was supported by the unverified sales. Westminster v. Jefferson Center Ass'n, 958 P.2d 495 (Colo. App. 1997).   Owner's opinion of property value. A property owner may testify as to his opinion of the value of his own property. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Berglund-Cherne Co., 193 Colo. 562 , 568 P.2d 478 (1977); Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Hayutin, 40 Colo. App. 559, 583 P.2d 296 (1978).   Testimony by the owner regarding the price paid for replacement property in a transaction that was not a comparable sale is incompetent. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Hayutin, 40 Colo. App. 559, 583 P.2d 296 (1978).   Evidence of restoration costs admissible. Evidence of costs of restoration and replacement of property where there is no testimony to relate these costs to market value is admissible only insofar as it aids the jury in arriving at the market value of the property before and after the taking in order that there be no confusion between the measure of damages and evidence admissible to show damages. City & County of Denver v. Hinsey, 177 Colo. 178 , 493 P.2d 348 (1972).   Evidence of economic rent is admissible only for limited purpose of establishing the basis for the expert's final opinion of value. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Berglund-Cherne Co., 193 Colo. 562 , 568 P.2d 478 (1977).   Evidence of the character and amount of business conducted on the land taken is only admissible for the limited purpose of showing a use to which the land could be put. City & County of Denver v. Hinsey, 177 Colo. 178 , 493 P.2d 348 (1972).   When opinion evidence inadmissible. Opinion testimony based almost entirely on the offering prices as distinguished from the sale prices of replacement properties and on the price paid for a noncomparable property is inadmissible. Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Hayutin, 40 Colo. App. 559, 583 P.2d 296 (1978).