Court Opinion

ID: 9577364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:34:13.118109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:27.235497
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the opinion of the court on the main case. I disagree with the portion of the opinion that directs the finding of more than nominal damages against the additional defendant. Haase’s testimony as to the difference in value of his land with the east half of Lot 1, Reiche’s Sunshine Acres severed from it was sufficient to support a finding of damages, but it did not compel such a finding. It is evident that the court did not believe the unsupported exorbitant claim of difference in value. Haase took his own chances of failure when he did not produce disinterested expert testimony of value. The court was not required to speculate on actual difference in value after it refused to accept the party’s own testimony nor is the party entitled to a second opportunity to provide acceptable evidence. See authorities cited in my dissent in Bass v. Boetel & Co., ante p. 733, 217 N. W. 2d 804. The trial court should have, however, entered a judgment for nominal damages.