We didn't think the issue of whether a property owner is competent to testify about the value of his or her own property was unsettled, but apparently an Alaska trial court did. In an inverse condemnation action which claimed that the operation of a nearby airport diminished Mr. Briggs' property value, the court granted the City summary judgment "because the property owner failed to submit any expert testimony regarding damages."
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed. In Briggs v. City of Palmer, No. S-14969 (Sep. 12, 2014), the court concluded that an inverse condemnation plaintiff does not need expert testimony to prove the value of damages, relying on established Alaska law. The court cited several of its own earlier decision which hold that property owners are competent to testify about the value of their own property.
Given that precedent, what gives? What would make the trial court conclude otherwise? Maybe there's a clue in this passage: "Palmer filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2012, arguing Briggs had no admissible evidence to prove his damages. Briggs's attorney did not oppose Palmer's motion. The superior court granted Palmer's motion ... Briggs filed motions seeking to proceed pro se ... " Slip op. at 3.
Briggs v. City of Palmer, No. S-14969 (Alaska Sep. 12, 2014)
