- 9 -
An owner of property is generally qualified to testify as an
expert as to the property’s value under rule 702 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. LaCombe v. A-T-O, Inc., 679 F.2d 431, 433
(5th Cir. 1982); Marcus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-190.
Opinion testimony of a landowner is admissible without further
qualification because of the presumption of special knowledge
that arises out of ownership of the land. LaCombe v. A-T-O,
Inc., supra at 433.
Bear Valley Partners did not own any part of the Victorville
property until a portion of the property was contributed to the
partnership in 1999 for the purpose of selling it to Lowe’s. It
is implied in the principle that allows owners to testify as
valuation experts that the owner must own the subject property on
the valuation date. Bear Valley Partners did not exist on the
valuation date. Therefore, Mr. Dicker was not an owner of the
Victorville property at that time by virtue of his being general
partner of Bear Valley Partners, as the estate claims. In
addition, the estate has not shown that he was an owner of the
Victorville property by any other means on the valuation date.
Since Mr. Dicker did not prepare an expert report, he does not
otherwise qualify as an expert witness under Rule 143(f). We
conclude that Mr. Dicker’s opinion testimony as to the value of
the property is not admissible under rule 702 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., Estate of Gloeckner v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011