Opinion
UWYCV165017752
05-05-2017
Danping Li v. Town of Woodbury
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION IN LIMINE #149
Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, J.
The defendant, city of Woodbury, filed a motion in limine to preclude the introduction of an affidavit of Jeff Zhu as an expert regarding the appraised market value of the property which is the subject of this tax appeal. The court conducted argument at short calendar for the motion. The defendant argues that Mr. Zhu does not have qualifications to testify as an expert real estate appraiser and is not licensed in this regard in the State of Connecticut. The defendant also argues that the plaintiff's notice at the February 2017 status conference that Mr. Zhu is not available to testify and will not be available for a deposition because at the time of the conference and to the date of trial Mr. Zhu is out of the country in China with no planned date for return is a basis to preclude him. This extended absence precludes the defendant from having the opportunity to cross exam Mr. Zhu not only as to his qualifications but also as to any opinion which he offers through his affidavit.
The motion in limine challenges the expertise of Mr. Zhu and cites the statutory authority for the licensing and classification of a real estate appraiser. In particular, C.G.S. Sec. 20-500 et seq. establishes the definition and the licensing for a real estate appraiser. The statute provides that a " real estate appraiser" or " appraiser" means " a person engaged in the business of estimating the value of real estate for a fee or other valuable consideration." An " appraisal" is defined as " the practice of developing an opinion of the value of real property, in conformance with the USAP. The " USAP" means the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice issued by the Appraisal Standards Boards of the Appraisal Foundation pursuant to Title Xl of FIRREA. The defendant argues that Mr. Zhu is not qualified as a real estate appraiser and is not licensed pursuant to C.G.S. Sec. 20-501 and for this reason the court should preclude the admission of his affidavit. The lack of licensing and designation as a real estate appraiser is not a basis to prohibit his testimony as to the fair market value of the property. In Taylor v. King, 121 Conn.App. 105, 994 A.2d 330 (2010), the court permitted the testimony of a realtor as to the value of the home and the diminution in value as a result of poor workmanship on the home. The expert was not a real estate appraiser but had been a realtor for eight years and held numerous designations including certified residential specialist, accredited buyer representative, accredited seller representative and a graduate of Realtor Institute. Id., 119. The court stated that the trial court has " wide discretion in ruling on the qualification of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions . . ." citing Hutchinson v. Town of Andover, 49 Conn.App. 781, 788, 714 A.2d 831 (1998). In following the court in Taylor, this court does not find that the fact that Mr. Zhu is not a real estate appraiser should preclude his testimony. However, the lack of including any meaningful qualifications other than working for some undefined time as a realtor diminishes his credibility and believability as to fair market value. But it is the unavailability of Mr. Zhu that is the troubling issue which governs the decision by this court. This court has reviewed the affidavit and the argument that Mr. Zhu has not and will not be available for deposition or at trial are substantial reasons to preclude his affidavit from introduction as an expert opinion.
The affidavit which was submitted by the plaintiff from Mr. Zhu indicates that his credentials include that he is a licensed realtor in the State of Connecticut. There is no statement as to the length of time he has been involved in this work. Additionally he fails to provide any educational background, work history or licensing history. He does not indicate that he has testified as a real estate expert in any other legal matters. He then continues to place monetary values on the various properties using different analysis and methods some of which only involve an increase in property value at times in 2013. There is no clear set review or analysis to permit the defendant to challenge or question the valuations that he has established. This analysis and the lack of clear background information or credible evidence to support his opinion as to appraised value creates flaws in his opinion which the plaintiff has not addressed and cannot be addressed because of his unavailability. The affidavit does not provide the information necessary to qualify Mr. Zhu or to permit his valuations to be introduced to the court. This lack of substance could be addressed if Mr. Zhu was available for a deposition. However, the plaintiff notified the court and the defendant that he is out of the country and will not be available for a deposition or trial. The inability to seek information of his qualifications and to further question the opinions is not only prejudicial to the defendant but a total lack of due process to permit them to cross examine the plaintiff's witness on the very subject of the appeal. Because the affidavit fails to satisfy any reasonable standard as to qualifications and substance and because Mr. Zhu has not and will not be available for cross examination by the defendant, the motion to preclude introduction of his affidavit is granted.