Court Opinion

ID: 9446380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:53:05.835012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:37.885985
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion, four errors and the attendant misconceptions on the part of the trial judge deprived the defendants of a fair trial on the issue of fair compensation for the land condemned. Accordingly, I vote to reverse and remand for a de novo trial.
First, the district judge failed to give sufficient weight to the overwhelming likelihood that the Meadow Brook land would have been rezoned for industrial use had not the Air Force opposed the Meadow Brook application for rezoning. Indeed the only opposition to such rezoning at the hearing held on September 14, 1954 before the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead was that of the United States Air Force itself. The government’s proposed findings of fact summarized the position of the Air Force as stated at this hearing by Brigadier General Condon representing the Mitchel Air Base Commandant and the Head Engineer of the Air Base thus:
“* -x- * they both outlined to the Town Board the basis of the Government’s opposition to the change in zoning, which involved flight hazards and safety' factors, as well as the fact that the property or a portion thereof was the subject of pending proposed acquisition for the expansion of the Air Base and that the change of zoning would be inimical to the military defense. (Def. Exhs. “A”, “E” and “I”.) As a result of the hearing, the Board reserved decision on the application for change. (Def. Exh. “A”.)”
The district judge recited that the change from residential to industrial zoning did not occur until November 1956. His opinion treated rezoning merely as a possibility.
It is quite obvious that the district judge gave no weight to the fact that only the opposition of the Air Force prevented the rezoning two years prior to November 1956 and that this opposition was based on the unspecified claim that “the change of zoning would be inimical to the military defense.”
It is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that the Air Force opposed the rezoning principally in order to keep down the price of this land which they then knew they were about to condemn by this action which was commenced a few weeks later on October 18, 1954. This is virtually admitted by Major General Asen-sio in a letter he wrote to the Town Board on September 28, 1954, wherein he stated that the Meadow Brook petition to rezone “was inimical to the interests of national defense inasmuch as action was even then in progress toward acquisition of the area in question for expansion of the Mitchel Air Force Base.” He further stated that “action toward acquisition of this property has proceeded through the essential preliminary phases of Congressional and Presidential authorization and appropriation. Under the Meadow Brook’s application for rezoning to industrial use, the maximum height of any building on the property would be limited to thirty-five feet. The restriction on height under the residential zoning was forty-five feet. On being apprised of this, Major General Asensio, Vice-Commander of the Continental Air Command and Brigadier General Condon’s superior, advised the Town Board of Hempstead that “In view of the lesser hazard presented by the proposed rezoning, no objection on specific grounds could be taken by representa*49tives of this command, provided that the 35 ft. limitation for height of structures were specifically incorporated in any amendment to the Building Zone Ordinance.” Thus, it is apparent that the rezoning would not have produced any real “flight hazards” or impaired “safety factors.” Consequently the rezoning was “inimical” to the government’s interest only because it might increase the market value of the land to be condemned.
While it may have been proper for the Air Force to oppose rezoning in order to keep down the price, it was error for the district judge to completely disregard the fact that it was only the action of the prospective condemner itself which postponed rezoning for industrial use. That the government seeks by such means to profit at the expense of its citizens seems to me to be unconscionable. To thus permit the government to profit by its own opposition is manifestly unjust.
Thus while the district court opinion deals merely with the “possibility” of rezoning, the fact is that rezoning was at that time a virtual certainty postponed merely by the action of the Air Force. The area surrounding the Meadow Brook property had completely changed from residential to industrial use even before Meadow Brook first applied for rezoning in May 1954. These surrounding properties had been rezoned, including other land of Meadow Brook. Some twenty industrial plants had already sprung up nearby in the few years after World War II, including those of such companies as Arma Corporation, Macy Shopping Center, Sperry Gyroscope Co., Roosevelt Raceway, Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corp., Pepsi-cola Bottling Co., All Metal Screw Products, Airborne Instrument Laboratory, and Grummann Aircraft Corporation.1
The government’s expert based his valuation exclusively on residential use and to his figures the district judge apparently added approximately 20% to reach the round figure of $10,000 per acre. On the other hand, the experts called by Meadow Brook gave considerable weight to the industrial use of the land in the light of the rapid industrialization of the area. In view of the record it seems to me that the district judge erred by giving little or no weight to the probable industrial use.
Second, it was error to exclude evidence of sales subsequent to October 18, 1954, the date of the order of possession, merely because the sales were subsequent to that date. United States v. 63.04 acres, supra. Thus it was error to exclude the contract of sale dated March 25, 1955 whereby Meadow Brook agreed to sell Granick Company, Inc. 4.5 acres on Merrick Avenue and the Hempstead Turnpike for $85,000. The land was conveyed later that year and was ultimately rezoned for industrial use. It is patently absurd to receive evidence of sales occurring almost five years before the order of possession and yet exclude evidence of a sale of contiguous land only five months later. This parcel was part of the land embraced in the Meadow Brook rezoning petition and it lay entirely within the approach zone of one of the Mitchel Field runways.
Thirdly, the district judge erroneously treated as evidence of value an offer to purchase 72.8 acres of Meadow Brook property which included the condemned land, for “upwards of $1,000,000,” although at the trial neither party contended that this was any evidence of value. Indeed the exhibit containing the “evidence” was not offered for that purpose.
The evidence of the offer to purchase appears in a letter written to the Hemp-stead Town Board on October 1, 1954 by counsel for Meadow Brook which recited *50the reasons why counsel had refused a request of the Air Force to take no further steps to rezone. The first reason was “That at the present time my client has a definite offer to sell the lands sought to be rezoned for a sum of upwards of $1,000,000.” The letter gave the name and address of the prospective purchaser. This letter was part of the file of the Town Board, most of which was received in evidence, not for the purpose of establishing the value of the land or any part of it, but to bring before the court the facts regarding the petition to rezone and the opposition of the Air Force.
An offer to buy is not evidence of value, as the government now concedes in its brief. See Sharp v. United States, 1903, 191 U.S. 341, 348, 24 S.Ct. 114, 48 L.Ed. 211. But in the district court the government submitted findings of fact, Number 10 of which read:
“10. It appears from the defendant's proof that on or about October 1, 1954, after the application for change in zoning and within eighteen days prior to the date of taking herein, the defendant had a bonafide offer of approximately $1,000,000. for the 72.8 acres involved in the application for a change in zoning, which would be at the rate of $13,736. per acre. (Def. Exh.
The proposed findings submitted by the defendant properly made no reference to the offer for the land.
Although the district judge never did pass on the proposed findings submitted by both parties, and in fact declined to do so, although he had requested that findings be submitted, the government’s suggestion found its way into the court’s opinion in the following language:
“It appears that the owner, at the time of taking and at the time of its petition for a change of zoning, had pending from a large developer a bona fide offer to purchase its remaining lands of approximately 72.8 acres for upwards of $1,000,000 or approximately $13,736 per acre average. * * * This sale was apparently contingent upon a change to industrial zoning and was never consummated.” United States v. 50.8 Acres of Land, etc., D.C., 149 F.Supp. 749, 752.
It should be noted that nowhere in the record does it appear how much “upwards of $1,000,000” the offer was. Nor was there any proof that the offer was contingent upon rezoning as the opinion stated. The only facts before the district judge regarding the offer were the statements of counsel quoted above from his letter to the Town Board.
My brothers seek to excuse the use of the letter by arguing that “the statement was relevant to check the credibility of Meadow Brook’s experts.” But the record shows the letter was not so used as the experts were never asked about the letter. Even if the letter had been so used it would bear only on the credibility of the experts and it would not be evidence of value.
Thus the court was misled into using an indefinite statement of an offer, not submitted as proof of value, and not proper evidence in any event, and from this offer it was argued that the value must be something less than the approximate amount of the offer. In my opinion it cannot seriously be questioned that this error was highly prejudicial to a proper consideration of the fair value of the land.
Fourth, the district judge allowed no damages for severance of a 7 acre plot. No reasons were given for this action. From the record it would seem that the isolation of these seven acres probably meant that they must be sold together, rather than as part of the larger plot which could be divided into the requisite 4acre parcels for industrial use. If this be so it would seem that some damage had thereby been suffered and the court should have made allowance therefor.
Lastly, I think the district judge erred in not adequately stating the bases for *51his decision. United States v. Bobinski, supra. Indeed what Chief Judge Clark wrote in that case at page 302 of 244 F. 2d applies with equal force here:
“We have somewhat more difficulty with the district court’s substituted conclusions as to land value, since they are not accompanied by findings as detailed as those of the commissioners and are less susceptible to careful review on appeal. Appellants submit a table to show that the trial court’s figures are with one minor exception precisely 20 per cent higher than the highest valuation set by a Government witness. Whether or not this was the trial court’s method of finding valuation and on what grounds it may be justified do not appear from the opinion below; and accordingly we must vacate the trial court judgment and remand for more detailed findings. We are not holding that its figures are wrong, only that as yet they are not supported by adequate findings.”
Here the court had requested counsel to submit findings, and although both parties submitted detailed findings the court failed to pass upon them.
Formal findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required in every case. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. But, here, where the opinion of the court is hardly more than a compilation of conclusions, it seems to me that formal findings of fact should have been made to supplement the opinion so that the parties and this Court could be informed of the bases on which the District Court rested its decision. See Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co., 7 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 4. Cf. United States v. Forness, 2 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 928, 942, certiorari denied City of Salamanca v. U. S., 316 U. S. 694, 62 S.Ct. 1293, 86 L.Ed 1764.
Because of these patent errors, I would reverse and remand for a trial de novo.

. From the record it is clear that Meadow Brook had decided on rezoning and the sale of its lands in 1953 after the State of New York had condemned some of its lands and before there had been any intimation of possible condemnation by the United States,