Harford Building Corp. v. Mayor of Baltimore

GETTY, Judge. Harford Building Corporation, appellant herein, seeks to be accorded one of the foremost procedural advantages afforded a plaintiff: the right, as a property owner in a condemnation case, to open and close at trial. Unsuccessful in convincing the trial judge that the property owner has the burden of proving value, appellant contends that we should judicially revise the batting order in condemnation proceedings. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, appellee, filed seven separate petitions for condemnation against appellant between December, 1972 and March, 1978.

The purpose was to acquire properties in the Metro Center West area of downtown Baltimore. The City was acquiring a parcel of land to be offered to the Social Security Administration for that agency’s planned expansion in and around Baltimore. All of the petitions were filed under the “quick take” provisions included in Sec. 21-16 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City. Pursuant to the Code, the City deposited into court the sum of $312,837.00, the amount estimated by the City’s appraisers to be the fair market value of the property being acquired.

This sum averages $3.10 per square foot of land. Harford considered the City’s valuation to be too low and the parties filed a joint motion for consolidation in order ⁸⁷ that a jury could determine the sole issue of value. 1 Prior to trial, Harford sought, unsuccessfully, the right to present opening and closing argument based upon its perception that it had the burden of establishing that the amount of compensation due and owing exceeded the amount paid into court by the City. On January 28, 1983, the jury returned an Inquisition setting the total value of the properties at $413,309.00, said sum being $100,472.00 above the amount paid into court by the City. Harford owned approximately 100,000 square feet of land which was included in the total area offered by the City to the Social Security Administration.

The Harford property had been acquired over a number of years in an effort to assemble large parcels of land for commercial development. The property consisted of: Block No. 574 - 35,703 sq. ft. Block No. 559 - 21,745 sq. ft. Block No. 558 - 24,272 sq. ft.

Remaining 3 Blocks - 19,223 sq. ft. The total value of the Harford property, according to its appraiser, was $3,004,694.00. On appeal, Harford raises two issues: 1. The property owner has the right to open and close. 2.

The trial court’s rulings were inconsistent. Issue number two relates to the trial court’s refusal to accept into evidence a lease transaction that Harford’s appraiser, William H. Baldwin, had capitalized to demonstrate a land value of $31.10 per square foot. The admissibility of lease transactions whereby the rent is capitalized to arrive at the fair market value of the property is expressly recognized in Brinsfield v. City of Baltimore, 236 Md. 66 , 202 A.2d 335 (1964). A trial court has considerable latitude in the exercise of discretion in determining comparable sales in condemnation cases.

State Roads Comm’n v. Adams, 238 Md. 371 , 209 A.2d 247 (1965). Whether the trial judge ⁸⁸ sustained the objection because the acquisition (for a McDonald’s restaurant) did not occur until after the City’s project was underway is not entirely clear. We note that earlier testimony relating to capitalization of a lease was received without objection. In any event, the alleged error was harmless.

Baldwin testified to thirteen comparable sales in arriving at fair market value for the subject property. The sales utilized ranged from $10.00 to $100.00 per square foot; the omission of one lease capitalized at $31.10, therefore, was not critical to his overall valuation. The jury, furthermore, had the opportunity to view all of the land acquired by the City prior to determining the fair market value. The gross disparity between the final figures arrived at by the appraisers for the City and for Harford is attributable to the City’s consideration of the land as individual parcels and Harford’s conception of the land as assembled blocks.

The existence of such divergent opinions as to value is precisely why Article III, Section 40 of the Constitution of Maryland provides that the value of private property taken for public use shall be determined by a jury. The suggestion that the property owner should have the right to open and close in a condemnation case is not