Court Opinion

ID: 9567851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:58:24.895805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:46.271849
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 1 and 3.1 concur in the conclusion that the enumeration ruled on in Division 2 does not raise reversible error. The reason I concur is because the court as factfinder patently would have discredited it even if the evidence had been admitted by the court as determiner of legal questions. Thus the exclusion was harmless, although precedent such as that cited would allow the opinion evidence. No legal authority is cited for the basis for excluding the evidence. That was the proposition that the comparable sales properties would have to be identified as prerequisite for the expert’s opinion on the subject property’s value. Instead identity would be ascertainable by cross-examination and, if not forthcoming, would affect the weight and credibility of the expert’s opinion. Thus it was legal error to exclude the evidence for the foundational deficiency. The exercise of discretion, when bottomed on misconception of the law, constitutes “abuse.”