Section 12.2 Comparable Sales

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Whether or not a sale is comparable is a question of fact, and the issue of the admissibility of comparable sales is within the broad discretion of the trial court.

State ex rel. Ordway v. McRae, 122 Ariz. 325, 594 P.2d 1021 (App. 1979)

Mastick v. State, 118 Ariz. 366, 576 P.2d 1366 (App. 1978)

City of Tucson v. Ruelas, 19 Ariz. App. 530, 508 P.2d 1174 (1973)

Robles v. City of Tucson, 16 Ariz. App. 100, 491 P.2d 489 (1971)

City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz. App. 413, 446 P.2d 692 (1968)

Evidence of the sale price of a similar property in the vicinity of the condemned property may be admissible for two purposes: (1) as substantive proof of the value of the condemned property; or (2) as support for an expert’s opinion of value of the property taken. Comparability requirements are stricter when the sale is used as substantive evidence of value than when it is used as the foundation of an expert’s opinion or for cross-examination of an expert.

Robles v. City of Tucson, 16 Ariz. App. 100, 491 P.2d 489 (1971)

City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz. App. 413, 446 P.2d 692 (1968)

Comparable sales which reflect an enhanced or depressed value because of the contemplated improvements are generally not admissible. However, when there is a valid question of fact as to whether the proposed project influenced certain sales, it is proper to admit evidence of the sales and instruct the jury regarding project influence.

City of Tucson v. Ruelas, 19 Ariz. App. 530, 508 P.2d 1174 (1973)

Robles v. City of Tucson, 16 Ariz. App. 100, 491 P.2d 489 (1971)

The comparability of a sale may be challenged by cross-examination and argued to the jury in final arguments. It is then the jury’s role to determine the weight to be accorded that sale.

City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz. App. 413, 446 P.2d 692 (1968)

There is no “bright line” test as to the length of time between a sale and the date of valuation which will make the sale either clearly too remote or clearly relevant. The lapse of time goes to the weight to be accorded the sale rather than its admissibility.

Mastick v. State, 118 Ariz. 366, 576 P.2d 1366 (App. 1978) (property owner’s testimony re: value in condemnation case nine years earlier held admissible as an admission and likened to a previous sale of the subject property)

City of Tucson v. Ruelas, 19 Ariz. App. 530, 508 P.2d 1174 (1973) (sales after valuation date may be used to show value of property in “before” condition)

Altschul v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 14...