Opinion
B160447.
7-21-2003
In re Marriage of KATHRYN CLARK and MICHAEL C. EBERHARD. KATHRYN CLARK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL C. EBERHARD, Appellant.
Lloyd E. Somogyi and Edward L. Somogyi for Appellant. Mary Ann Foster for Respondent.
Michael C. Eberhard appeals a judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Kathryn Clark. The sole issue is the value of the family home. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial courts finding that its value is $ 200,000. We affirm.
FACTS
Eberhard testified that he lived in the family home after his separation from Clark. He stated, "It needs a lot of work. I havent had time to do anything." He said the water well will have to be "re-drilled [P] . . . [P] when the water is depleted[,] hopefully not soon." But the well is "still working. " Richard Schenberger, a real estate appraiser, testified that the fair market value of the house was $ 185,000. In reaching that figure, he had reduced the value by $ 13,000, which was the cost he estimated for installing a new water well. He did not know whether the current well had to be replaced. He made the reduction because Eberhard told him "the well was failing or had failed," and had given him an estimate from a drilling company.
Schenberger said that by using a "cost" and "sales comparison approach" the value of the house could range from $ 180,000 to $ 195,000. He said, "if it was just cherried up a little bit and the grounds cleaned up[,] it would probably be in the [$ 200,000 to $ 210,000] range."
Schenberger prepared an appraisal report which included six "comparable" properties sold in 2001 and 2002. The sales prices for the homes sold in 2001 were $ 230,600, $ 220,000, $ 188,000, $ 225,000 and $ 245,000. The sixth home was sold in 2002 for $ 248,000. Schenberger said that for some of the comparable properties sold in 2001 their current market values were $ 5,000 to $ 10,000 higher than the sales price. The appraisal report contained pictures of the house involved in this case and the six comparable properties.
The court found that the family residence was community property and its value was $ 200,000. It found with "cosmetic improvements" it could be worth $ 200,000 to $ 210,000. It said it "also considered that the comparable properties used in the appraisal have increased in value since the date of the comparative values cited."
DISCUSSION
Eberhard contends there was no substantial evidence to support the trial courts finding that the family residence is worth $ 200,000. We disagree. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and draw all reasonable inferences to support it. (In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614, 122 Cal. Rptr. 79, 536 P.2d 479.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the trial courts decision. (Ibid .)
Eberhard contends that because the expert said the house was worth $ 185,000, the trial court was bound by that value. But the court may reject the opinion of an expert and "reach its own independent determination of the present value[.]" (In re Marriage of Bergman (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 742, 754, 214 Cal. Rptr. 661.) Even where the experts opinion is uncontradicted, the court may reach a different conclusion relying on the remaining testimony of the expert. (In re Marriage of Huntington (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1522; Ortzman v. Van Der Waal (1952) 114 Cal. App. 2d 167, 169-170.)
"It is the material from which expert opinion is fashioned and the reasoning of the expert in reaching his or her conclusion that is important. [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Battenburg (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1345; see also People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489, 498, 174 Cal. Rptr. 684, 629 P.2d 485.) In determining the value of the family residence, experts will testify "about the residence, comparable sales, economic conditions and other factors[.] The court may accept, reject, or give little or great weight to each factor and therefore conclude the value is somewhere between the high and low opinions of the experts." (In re Marriage of Bergman,supra, 168 Cal. App. 3d at p. 753, fn. 8.) The trial courts decision will not be reversed on appeal unless it is arbitrary. (In re Marriage of Battenburg , at p. 1345.)
Here the trial court could reasonably infer that the value was $ 200,000. Schenberger testified that using the "sales comparison approach" the value could be as high as $ 195,000. With some "cosmetic repairs" it would increase from $ 200,000 to $ 210,000. Five of the six comparable properties sold for prices that far exceeded $ 200,000, and the two most recent sales prices were $ 245,000 and $ 248,000. Schenberger testified that the current values of some of the comparable properties were substantially higher than their 2001 sales prices.
Moreover, the court could reasonably infer that Schenbergers $ 13,000 reduction in value for the cost of a new well was not appropriate. He reduced the value based on Eberhards statement to him that "the well was failing or had failed." But Eberhard testified the well was currently working. There was no expert testimony about when a new one had to be drilled. Schenberger only "assumed" the comparable properties had good wells, he did not know that.
One of the reasons Schenberger gave for lowering the value was an area outside the rear part of the house which needed to be "cleaned up." The court had a photograph of that area. From that and Eberhards testimony, the court could reasonably infer that Eberhard was responsible for that condition. He has not shown an abuse of discretion.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J.