M. A. Realty Co. v. State Roads Commission

OppBnhbimbr, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question involved in this condemnation case is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to allow the president of the corporate property owner, one of the appellants, to give his opinion as to the fair market value of the property condemned. The appellants’ dissatisfaction with the result of the inquisition is understandable, for the sum awarded by the jury is substantially less than the amount which the State Roads Commission had paid into court on the taking. Four lots are involved, each about 50 by 150 feet.

The improvements on the lots are unusual in nature. The corporate appellant had owned a number of two story houses in Baltimore County. The houses here involved were in the path of another highway; the corporate appellant sawed off their tops reducing them to one story houses, and moved the remnants to the sites in Anne Arundel County, which, with the truncated houses erected thereon, are the subject of these condemnation proceedings. The Commission, the appellee, filed two petitions of condemnation, each involving two lots.

The petitions were filed ⁵²⁴ under the quick taking statutory provision, Code (1957) Art. 89B, Sec. 9. In one case the Commission paid $6700 into court, in the other $6250, representing what it deemed to be the fair value of the land and improvements. The cases were consolidated and tried in March, 1966 before a jury. At the trial, Mr. John F. Conroy, an expert appraiser, testified on behalf of the Commission that, in his opinion, the value of each of the four lots was $1000.

The lots had been purchased by the appellant in 1965 at a total price of $3500. Mr. Conroy’s estimate of putting the four houses in usable condition was a total of some $17,000. His opinion of the fair value of the condemned properties as a whole was $6000. He had originally valued them at $12,950, the amount paid by the Commission into court, but reduced his appraisal because of legal questions raised in connection with the correctness of the statements made by the corporate appellant in its applications for building permits.

The appellants’ expert, Mr. Maurice C. Ogle, testified that, in his opinion, the fair value of the properties was $20,000. The appellants thereupon called Mr. Martin Anderson, the corporation’s president and chief stockholder. Mr. Anderson testified that he had been in the business of building, improving property and renting for ten years. The houses on the condemned properties were four of thirteen which had been purchased about a year and a half before.

Mr. Robinson, one of the individual appellants, had bought the houses, turned them over to the corporate appellant, and then lent the money to the corporate appellant for financing the construction work. The total of Mr. Anderson’s estimates of the cost of putting the four truncated houses in marketable condition, without the inclusion of any profit, was $11,846. He had done the kind of work involved on over thirty houses. Mr. Anderson was then asked by counsel for the appellants what, in his opinion, was the fair market value of the houses as they were at the time of the filing of the condemnation proceedings in March, 1966.

Objection was made by counsel for the Commission. The court then asked whether Mr. Anderson was the owner or whether the corporation was the owner and was informed that the owner was the corporation. The court sustained the objection. Mr. Anderson then testified as to the amount of money the corpora ⁵²⁵ tion had expended on the properties as taken from the corporate books.

Thereafter, the jury found that the proper compensation due the appellants was $8,000, which is approximately $5,000 less than the amount paid into court by the Commission. The appellants contend that Mr. Anderson’s testimony as to his opinion of the value of the condemned houses was improperly excluded. They rely on the rule that an owner of property is presumptively qualified to give his opinion as to its value without qualification as an expert. The rule is well established as to an individual owner.

Baltimore City v. Schreiber, 243 Md. 546, 553 , 221 A. 2d 663 (1966). See also Smith v. Potomac Electric, 236 Md. 51, 60 , 202 A. 2d 604 (1964), and cases therein cited. This Court has held, however, that the rule is limited to personal owners of property, and does not extend to the officers or stockholders of a corporation, unless the officer or stockholder is shown to have knowledge which in fact qualifies him to testify as to the value of the property which his corporation holds. Smith v. Potomac