AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The City of Albuquerque initiated a condemnation proceeding to acquire two small easements on a 15-acre property used as a parking facility near the Albuquerque airport. The easements were needed to install support posts for traffic signs directing airport traffic. The property was owned by PCA-Albuquerque #19 at the time of the petition but was later acquired by Chavez Properties, a partnership. The signs allegedly obstructed the property's visibility, reducing its value (paras 1, 5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Awarded $246,000 in damages to PCA-Albuquerque #19 and Chavez Properties for the reduction in property value caused by the condemnation (headnotes, para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (City of Albuquerque): Argued that the district court erred by (1) allowing the Partnership to call expert witnesses not disclosed until the first day of trial, (2) permitting Manuel Chavez to testify on the property's value, and (3) admitting expert testimony from Frank Bona Sr. on the percentage decrease in property value without sufficient foundation (para 2).
• Respondents (PCA-Albuquerque #19 and Chavez Properties): Defended the admissibility of the expert testimony and argued that any error in admitting Bona's testimony was harmless, as the verdict was supported by other evidence, including Chavez's testimony (paras 6, 16).

Legal Issues

• Was the district court correct in admitting expert testimony from Frank Bona Sr. regarding the percentage decrease in property value caused by the condemnation?
• Did the admission of Bona's testimony constitute reversible error?
• Was the Chavez testimony properly admitted?
• Was any error in admitting Bona's testimony harmless?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 18).

Reasons

Per Hartz J. (Bivins J. specially concurring, Minzner C.J. joining in concurrence):

• Chavez Testimony: The court found no reversible error in admitting Chavez's testimony, as the objections raised at trial were insufficient to challenge its admissibility (para 3).
• Bona Testimony: The court held that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Bona's testimony. Bona lacked knowledge of local property values and relied on speculative assumptions about the impact of the signs on the property's value. His testimony did not meet the standard for expert evidence in condemnation cases, which requires familiarity with local land values (paras 8-13).
• Harmless Error Analysis: The court rejected the argument that the error in admitting Bona's testimony was harmless. Bona's testimony significantly influenced the jury's verdict, as it provided a valuation closer to the jury's award than the other evidence presented (paras 16-17).
• General Rule for Expert Testimony: The court emphasized that expert testimony on land value in condemnation cases should generally be excluded unless the expert is familiar with local property values. Exceptional circumstances justifying such testimony are rare and were not present in this case (paras 13-14).

Special Concurrence by Bivins J. (Minzner C.J. joining):

• Bivins J. agreed with the majority's reasoning but added that Bona's testimony was also inadmissible because it was based on a subjective standard—how Bona would feel if the property were his—rather than an objective market value standard. This further demonstrated Bona's lack of qualifications to provide expert testimony on the property's value (paras 20-23).