Opinion ID: 884035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the District Court abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the record to remain open for the testimony of a rebuttal witness?

Text: In arguing for a higher valuation for the farm, Linda sought to compare the appraisals given by Anderson and Wicks to the price paid by a neighbor who had purchased a comparable farm. Wicks testified, however, that the neighbor's farm was not comparable because it included a pond and land for grazing as well as croplandadvantages the Meeks' farm did not have. Therefore, Wicks asserted, this farm naturally would have a higher value and could not be compared to the Meeks' farm. To rebut Wicks' testimony, Linda sought to present testimony from the owner of the neighboring farm. Linda claimed the owner would have testified that he bought his farm without consideration of the pond or the grazing land, and that, in his opinion, the farm still retained its higher value even if those assets were factored out. This owner, however, was not present in court and had not been served with a subpoena to appear; Linda therefore moved the District Court to hold the record open until the neighbor could testify. The District Court denied her motion, finding that the witness could have been subpoenaed earlier if Linda wanted to assure his presence. Linda, however, claimed that she had not secured the neighbor's appearance because she had not anticipated Wicks' testimony and was surprised by his declaration that the two farms were not comparable. Therefore, Linda asserted that she should have been afforded the opportunity to hold the record open until the neighbor could testify. The standard of review of evidentiary rulings is whether the district court abused its discretion. A district court has broad discretion to determine if evidence will be admitted and, absent an abuse of discretion, this Court will not overturn a district court's determination. Seizure of $23,691 in U.S. Currency, 905 P.2d at 153. Even if Linda was in fact surprised by Wicks' refusal to compare the Meeks' farm to the neighbor's farm, we fail to see the probative value of the neighbor's testimony. Wicks was hired to do a professional appraisal of the Meeks' farm; in so doing, he looked at several comparable sales. The neighbor, on the other hand, is a farmer who even Linda admits could only have testified to his own willingness to pay a high price for his own farm, even if, hypothetically, it did not have some of the advantages which it does in fact have. This opinion testimony, even if allowable, could not prove that Wicks was incorrect in his declaration that the farms are not comparable for appraisal purposes. The testimony of an expert, whose opinion is based on fact, could not be adequately rebutted by the testimony of a layman whose opinion is based on a hypothetical scenario which does not exist. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the record to remain open for the addition of testimony which could not substantively assist it in its fact-finding task.