(a)The value of property may be shown only by the opinions of any of the following:
(1)Witnesses qualified to express such opinions.
(2)The owner or the spouse of the owner of the property or property interest being valued.
(3)An officer, regular employee, or partner designated by a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association that is the owner of the property or property interest being valued, if the designee is knowledgeable as to the value of the property or property interest.
(b)Nothing in this section prohibits a view of the property being valued or the admission of any other admissible evidence (including but not limited to evidence as to the nature and condition of the property and, in an eminent domain proceeding, the character of the improvement proposed to be constructed by the plaintiff) for the limited purpose of enabling the court, jury, or referee to understand and weigh the testimony given under subdivision (a); and such evidence, except evidence of the character of the improvement proposed to be constructed by the plaintiff in an eminent domain proceeding, is subject to impeachment and rebuttal.
(c)For the purposes of subdivision (a), “owner of the property or property interest being valued” includes, but is not limited to, the following persons:
(1)A person entitled to possession of the property.
(2)Either party in an action or proceeding to determine the ownership of the property between the parties if the court determines that it would not be in the interest of efficient administration of justice to determine the issue of ownership prior to the admission of the opinion of the party.
Notes of Decisions
Escondido Union Sch. Dist. v. Casa Sueños De Oro, Inc., 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “In essence, Betteker testified that despite the differing language of the form, the definitions were in fact identical and he used the statutory definition of fair market value in appraising the property.”
In Re Est. of Young, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“(Evid.Code, § 813, subd. (a)(2) [an owner of property can give opinions as to its value]; see 1 Witkin, Cal.”
City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist Church, 1 Cal. App. 3d 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 3× “” Subsequently the court instructed the jury, *411 “An expert appraiser or the owner of the property being condemned or any witness who has knowledge of the market válue of the subject property may give his opinion of such market value and severance damage, if any, and the…”
People v. Prosser, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
“(Evid. Code, § 813, subd. (a)(2).) *692 Defendant also asserts that Evidence Code section 813 is limited by Evidence Code section 814, which provides: “The opinion of a witness as to the value of property is limited to such an opinion as is based on matter perceived by or…”
Gillotti v. Stewart, 11 Cal. App. 5th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
“Although the statute defines “owner” broadly, to include the spouse of an owner and a person entitled to possession of the property (Evid. Code, § 813, *905 subds. (a)(2), (c)(1)), and the jury was instructed a spouse could opine on value, Quade did not testify that he was…”
In Re Marriage of Hargrave, 163 Cal. App. 3d 346 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 813, subd. (a)(2).) The disparity between husband's testimony and that of the qualified expert goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”
Heron Bay Homeowners Ass'n v. City of San Leandro, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“suggested " the values of properties within a mile of a turbine dropped between 10 percent and 30 percent, and (2) applied here, this would represent a total reduction of "between $15,000 to $150,000 per home or $30 [sic] *898 million to $150 million for the community.”
Schellinger Bros. v. Cotter, 2 Cal. App. 5th 984 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“(Evid. Code, § 813.) Having failed to prove diminution of value, Schellinger can recover nothing.”
Fragale v. Faulkner, 3 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5955 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“(Evid. Code, § 813, subd. (a).) Further, counsel stated: “[T]his owner bought a house he believed in a certain condition.”
Irving Nelkin & Co. v. South Beverly Hills Wilshire Jewelry & Loan, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, Evidence Code section 813 provides that the value of property or a property interest may be shown by, among others, (1) the owner of the property or property interest, and (2) “[a]n officer, regular employee, or partner designated by a corporation, partnership, or…”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 813(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.