El Monte Union High Sch. Dist. of L.A. Cty. v. Consumers Holding Co.

LILLIE, J. In this eminent domain proceeding the jury placed a valuation of $236,250 on the subject property, some 15 acres of land and several old residential buildings, although the owner’s expert witness testified to a market value of more than twice such sum. Defendant owner has appealed, contending that this unusual disparity resulted from the trial court’s ruling unduly restricting the cross-examination of respondent’s expert witness concerning comparable sales relied on by him in making an earlier appraisal, which was prejudicial error.

At the time of trial (June of 1965) the property in suit was located in unincorporated territory adjacent to and westerly of the San Gabriel River—specifically, west of and about 500 feet south of the city limits of the City of Industry and easterly of the City of El Monte to which, it is represented, it was annexed in June of 1966. Since there was a reasonable probability of a zone change allowing industrial use of the property, each expert (one for each side) testified that a light industrial use of the property would be most profitable and therefore constitute its “highest and best use.” Additionally, each expert testified to the particulars concerning sales of property considered comparable to that in suit and therefore reasonably indicative of the latter’s value on the date of appraisal. Because appellant’s expert, Mr. Brady, considered it a natural environmental boundary, he excluded all sales of properties lying east of the San Gabriel River and based his valuation ($493,000) on six sales of industrial properties to the west of the river. On the other hand, respondent's expert, Mr. Whittlesey, gave consideration to sales on both sides of the river; based thereon, he fixed the value of the subject property in the sum found by the jury to be just compensation for its taking.

As stated at the outset, Whittlesey had made an earlier appraisal report; he did so at respondent’s request in July of 1963, some nine months before the instant action was commenced, and reported his opinion of the value of the property [175]to be $236,250. Prior to trial in June of 1965, respondent’s counsel asked Whittlesey to up-date his appraisal as of the date that summons issued (April 3, 1964). Complying with such request, he determined the value of the property to be the same as that arrived at in the previous report which relied on seventeen sales of property and one lease—eighteen transactions in all; the 1965 report, in turn, was based on sixteen transactions, thirteen new sales discovered in his later survey and three additional transactions (two sales and one lease) he had previously found in the survey of 1963. WTiittlesey on direct examination testified to the sixteen transactions last mentioned; he did not, however, testify to some thirteen sales upon which his 1963 appraisal relied. All appraisal reports having been furnished respective counsel pursuant to pretrial order, appellant sought to cross-examine Whittlesey as to his reasons for discarding sales not testified to by the witness although he originally considered them comparable—specifically, certain sales data used by him in formulating his 1963 appraisal but not made use of in his 1965 reappraisal of the property in suit, When counsel for appellant offered in evidence a map depicting properties that accompanied the 1963 appraisal, the court sustained respondent’s objection to the document’s admissibility for the reason that it was irrelevant and immaterial; the court stated, however, that appellant would be permitted through its own witnesses to adduce such excluded evidence. It is now claimed that the court erred in thus limiting such cross-examination, which claim renews the contention made by appellant’s counsel at the trial: “... I think the cases are uniform in allowing me a very wide latitude on cross-examination to test the witnesses [sic] investigation. I would like to know what sales he considered, where they are, and why he felt at least one time they were most comparable. I think the law allows me that privilege.”