An Owner's Right to Testify to Value
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Pages | 77 |
1996, November, Pg. 77. An Owner's Right to Testify to Value
Q: May the owner of property testify to its value, without being qualified as an expert?
A: Yes, as long as the valuation has some basis and does not depend on improper considerations.
Modern evidence law is distinguished by its concern for what a witness knows, not who he or she is. Thus, status-based evidence rules, such as the prohibition against testimony from an interested party(fn1) or the requirement that witnesses believe in a deity who punishes liars,(fn2) have been superseded by the rule that a sworn witness needs only personal knowledge or expert qualifications.
Some status-based rules remain, however, such as the Dead Man's Statute at CRS § 13-90-102 and the owner valuation rule, which allows property owners to testify to the value of their property, regardless of their lack of expertise.(fn3) The latter is a remarkable rule because it allows "expert" testimony from a witness without any showing of the "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education"(fn4) required from other experts.(fn5) It is mainly used in eminent domain cases(fn6) but applies to any case in which valuation of property is at issue, including divorce cases(fn7) and tort actions.(fn8) Although the rule is usually applied to real property, the Colorado Supreme Court has given owners of personal property the same prerogative.(fn9) Under it, an owner can testify not only to value per se but also to components of value, such as depreciation.(fn10)
In earlier cases, Colorado courts applied the owner valuation rule without any apparent concern for the basis or methodology used by the owner.(fn11) However, beginning with the decision in City and County of Denver v. Hinsey,(fn12) Colorado courts began to regulate owner valuation testimony by disqualifying testimony based on "improper considerations."
In Hinsey, the landowner and two "experts" testified to the value of condemned property and based their valuation, in part, on estimates of damage to the landowner's business. This was an improper consideration under established law,(fn13) and although the trial court had allowed the testimony, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed as to the testimony both from the experts and the landowner...
To continue reading
Request your trial