Opinion ID: 1396125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission Into Evidence of a Sale Taking Place Fifteen Months After The Date of the Taking by the State.

Text: Appellants argue that evidence of a sale of property which took place one year and three months after the date the Dash's property was condemned was improperly admitted because in effect the trial court is holding that a reasonable person in April, 1968, would know and take into consideration what property was going to sell for in July, 1969. This would then give the theoretical reasonable man the power to see the future... . The allowance of such a rule will tend to prolong the time of trial, since one side or the other, depending on the real estate market, will be trying to forestall the trial to allow their position to be improved. One authority states the rule to be that whether there is sufficient similarity between the property taken and the comparable sale property is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. A sale within a year is usually admitted as a matter of course, and the courts generally make no distinction between sales occurring before and sales occurring after the taking. [36] In State Kobayashi v. Heirs of Kapahi, 48 Hawaii 101, 147, 395 P.2d 932, 939 (Hawaii 1964), the court said: From the foregoing authorities emerge the following applicable principles: Where evidence of a comparable sale or lease is offered, the trial judge may, in his discretion, admit or exclude it considering such factors as time of the transaction, size, shape and character of the comparable land, and whether there has been any enhancement or depression in value. It makes no difference whether the transaction occurred before or after the date of condemnation so long as it is not too remote a period of time and the land is reasonably comparable, having been neither enhanced or decreased in value by the project or improvement occasioned in the taking. The weight to be given such evidence is for the jury. The trial judge's determination as to admissibility or nonadmissibility of such evidence will not be upset on appeal unless it is a clear abuse of discretion. [37] Within fairly broad limits any dissimilarities between the properties should go to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. [38] Although the sale of Parcel 5A took place fifteen months after the date of the taking, it was located next to the condemned parcel, had similar topography, and also fronted on International Airport Road. Under these circumstances, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that the sale was admissible as a comparable sale.