Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hans Qttinot, Esq., City Attorney June 10, 2015 Page 2 • combined with the testimony of Checca and Respondent's appraiser, Harry Newstreet which asserted that the 46 boat slips could be sold to the Winston Towers Condominium Association unit owners. You will recall, other than the pure and unsubstantiated opinion testimony from these witnesses, there was simply no other factual evidence (testimony or documentary) to support this naked assertion. Newstreet then concluded that not only was the value of the subject property based on the subject property's highest and best use as a private docking facility, but also the compensation due to the Respondent for the taking of Parcel A was $60,000 and severance damages was $795,000. It is my opinion that the court erred in allowing this speculative evidence to reach the jury, and further that the verdict in this case is tainted by such evidence. I reiterate my recommendation this case be reviewed by appellate counsel on these issues. Notwithstanding the tainted jury verdict, I believe it especially important to underscore the extreme legal and economic success that the City achieved in this 3-year old condemnation case. You will recall that very soon after the Order of Taking, which transferred title and interest in Parcel A to the City, the Respondent and his counsel presented the City with two separate quitclaim deeds claim ownership of two upland parcels, a.k.a. 0206 and 0208. (Upland Parcels) which were adjacent and abutting the subject submerged land parcel. From that point through January 2015, Respondent claimed that these upland parcels, along with his submerged land parcel, constituted the parent tract, for purposes of determining the amount of compensation owed to him by the City. Respondent's counsel retained a team of two engineers, a land planner, and a real estate appraiser all of whom prepared reports detailing their professional opinions that the subject property (as of December 17, 2012) could have been filled and developed with 144 condominium or apartment units. Those same experts opined that the market value of the subject property and compensation owed for the taking of Parcel A was $5,880,000. According to Newstreet, Respondent was owed $516,000 for the taking of Parcel A (7,896 square feet), and $5.36 million for severance damages. Alternatively, Respondent's experts claimed that the parent tract could have also been developed as a marina,which produced an established value of$2.8 million. Respondent's expert witnesses also claimed that after the taking of Parcel A, Respondent's remainder property could only be valued on the basis of 236,000 square feet of Transferable Development Rights (135 dwelling units), which in essence equated to an after value for the remainder property of$2.4 million. For the three-year period beginning shortly after the Order of Taking through January 2015, the City exerted an extraordinary legal challenge to Respondent's valuation claims, including but not limited to the following: 1. Respondents parent tract claim, based on the unity of title and unity of use; 2. Motion to Strike Fraudulent Ownership Evidence, as to Respondent's claimed ownership of each of the Upland Parcels; 3. Motion in Limine as to Respondent's before valuation of the subject property, based