Opinion ID: 1182812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of comparable sales presented by appellee's appraiser.

Text: Appellant argues that the court erred in admitting evidence of the sales presented by appellee's appraiser, Mr. Lum on the grounds that the sales did not resemble the property as to such factors as size, shape and character of the property, time of transaction, size, zoning, age, and location. State v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Haw. 101, 395 P.2d 932 (1964), 7 Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 13.03. Appellant objects to the sales, again on the basis that the sales were of land which was subdividable. We have held in this jurisdiction that the trial judge has broad discretionary authority to admit or exclude evidence of comparable sales or leases and the exercise of discretion will not be upset on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Martin, 54 Haw. 167, 170, 504 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1973); Honolulu Redevelopment Agency v. Pun Gun, 49 Haw. 640, 645, 426 P.2d 324, 327 (1967); City and County v. Bishop Trust Co., 48 Haw. 444, 464, 404 P.2d 373, 386 (1965); State v. Heirs of Kapahi, supra, 48 Haw. at 112-13, 395 P.2d at 939. We have also stated the following: It is well established that recent sales of similar real estates are admissible as evidence in condemnation cases, either as substantive proof of value of property taken or in support of an expert's opinion as to value. [Citations omitted.] If such evidence is offered on the latter basis, ... the foundation requirements to show similarity are less strict than when the evidence is used as direct and independent proof of value. ... [Emphasis added.] State v. Martin, supra, 54 Haw. at 170, 504 P.2d at 1225. In this jurisdiction, we have taken a liberal view toward the admission of evidence used to support an expert's opinion as to fair market value. Honolulu Redevelopment Agency v. Pun Gun, supra . We have reasoned that a witness, having the necessary qualifications may give his opinion on the value of the property. [T]he factors considered and the extent of knowledge and reasoning of an otherwise qualified appraiser are matters which go to the weight rather than the competence of his testimony. State v. Heirs of Kapahi, supra, 48 Haw. at 114, 395 P.2d at 940. In the case before us, Mr. Lum clearly stated in his testimony that the properties which he was presenting were not comparable properties because they did not resemble the condemned property, and that such sales were not being offered as substantive evidence of the value of the property. Mr. Lum testified that the sales were being used as data properties to support his opinion of value. In view of this, and in view of the trial court's limiting instruction number 8, we think the jury was sufficiently apprised that the sales were not to be taken as substantive evidence of the fair market value of the property but merely as support for Mr. Lum's opinion on the fair market value. We find no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the sales presented by appellee's appraiser. Judgment affirmed.