Perlmutter v. State Roads Commission

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Perlmutters, dissatisfied with a verdict of $46,878' awarded by a Prince George’s County jury on an inquisition in the condemnation of 6.681 acres for the construction of Maryland Route 197, would have us reverse the judgment because the trial judge excluded the testimony of an expert witness regarding the price paid by the State Roads Commission for adjoining property acquired for the same project. We shall affirm. Certainly since Bonaparte v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 131 Md. 80 , 101 A. 594 .

(1917) it has been settled that the price paid for comparable property acquired under threat of condemnation is. not admissible as evidence of fair market value of other property because a sale under threat of condemnation is not a voluntary one. This appears to be the rule adopted, by a majority of other jurisdictions. See 4 Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 12.3113 (1) (3d ed. 1962) at 106 and cases there collected and 2 Lewis on Eminent Domain, § 667 (3d ed. 1909) at 1147. It is also consistent, with the statutory definition of fair market value which, appears in Maryland Code (1957, 1967 Repl.

Vol.) Art.. 33 A § 6: “The fair market value of property in a proceeding for condemnation shall be the price as of the valuation date for the highest and best use of such property which a seller, willing but not obligated to sell, would accept for the property,, and which a buyer, willing but not obligated to buy, would pay therefor excluding any increment in value proximately caused by the public project for which the property condemned is needed, plus the amount, if any, by which such, price reflects a diminution in value occurring between the effective date of legislative authority ²⁵⁵ for the acquisition of such property and the date of actual taking if the trier of facts shall find that such diminution in value was proximately caused by the public project for which the