Court Opinion

ID: 9522715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:31:24.730726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:44.186034
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL, dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from the decision reached in this cause by my distinguished colleagues. The majority reverses the judgment of the trial court because of the court’s supposedly erroneous denial of the Department’s objections to the testimony of defendants’ appraiser concerning comparable sales which took place in 1972. The opinion concludes that, having granted defendants’ motion in limine as to his 1972 purchase, the court abused its discretion by receiving evidence of the 1972 comparables. This conclusion seems logical at first blush but on closer examination, it ignores the salient fact that on appeal the Department has waived any such error, if error it was, by arguing at length that the 1972 purchase transaction was not too remote. While the Department does argue that the appraisal testimony was objectionable, the reason advanced is that the comparable sales were a special value situation, not that they were too remote. In my view the Department has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on the evidence in this case. For that reason, I would affirm.