Opinion ID: 2571591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Comparable Sales v. Comparable Rentals

Text: The Sextons also take issue with Shaner's usage of the comparable sales method to estimate the land value. They complain that Shaner estimated only the rental value of the [Sextons'] vacant land, not the sale value of land with a residence and that Shaner did not perform a comparable rental analysis to look for other rental properties in Mission Hills. Their arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, the comparable sales method of valuation (market data approach) is a well-recognized method of valuation in Kansas. Eisenring, 269 Kan. at 774, 7 P.3d 1248. Second, based on the parties' agreement, Shaner accepted the county appraiser's estimate of the contributing value of the improvements on the Sextons' property to be $1,759,430. Thus, Shaner obtained what he believed were six comparable sales of tear down properties in prestigious Mission Hills and, after making the requisite adjustments to the sales of the comparable properties, established a land value of $22 per square foot or $2,195,500 for the Sextons' lot. Third, the Sextons cite no authority to support the contention that Shaner was obligated to perform a comparable rental analysis in estimating values. Shaner went into meticulous detail, however, concerning the comparable sales he utilized in the calculation of the Sextons' land value. And he ultimately based the compensation and damages resulting from the partial taking on the difference between the fair market value of the entire property before the taking and the value after the taking. Finally, K.S.A. 26-513(e) allows the use of comparable sales, cost, capitalization of income, or any combination of those methods. We further note that the trial court instructed the jury in conformity with the Kansas condemnation statutory provisions and PIK Civ.3d 131.04 (Measure of Compensation  Partial Taking). In addition, the jury was instructed on the correct definition of fair market value. We conclude that the jury's verdict conforms to Kansas condemnation law. Again, while there may be a basis to argue the methodology was flawed under the facts of this case or that Shaner mixed methodologies by using comparable sales when calculating rental value, those are arguments which go to the weight the jury should give the opinion and are matters subject to cross-examination. The evidence was admissible and the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the City (the party whose position was accepted by the jury), supports the jury's verdict. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying the Sextons' motion for a new trial on this ground. ISSUE 2: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by improperly admitting evidence regarding the City's actual use of the easements and the limited scope of the taking? Next, the Sextons argue that the trial court should have granted their motion for a new trial because the court improperly admitted evidence regarding the City's actual use of the two temporary easements on their property and the limited scope of the taking. More specifically, the Sextons make two arguments: (a) The trial court should not have allowed testimony that, despite the City's 1-year taking of the two temporary easements, the City did not use the easements for the entire 1-year term of the taking; and (b) the trial court erred in allowing the City, over the Sexton's objections, to introduce into evidence portions of the amended condemnation petition that allowed the jury to infer the Sextons could use the area subject to the easements during the 1-year period.