scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Fed, R. Evid. -701. Rule- 701 thus authorizes “a lay witness to testify in the form of opinions or inferences drawn from her observations when testimony in that form will be helpful to the trier of fact.” Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988); see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (“Unlike an ordinary witness, see Rule 701, an expert is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation. See Rules 702 and 703.”). Further, it is established that testimony by a witness relating the value of his own land or property may be admissible as a lay opinion. See Neff, 708 F.2d at 643-44 (<HOLDING>); Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Sartor, 78 F.2d
recognizing that the expert was particularly qualified to give his opinion holding that even though the plaintiff was not tendered as an expert he should have been permitted to give his lay opinion as to the value of his coin collection which was based upon coin collector publications upon appraisals he received from various collectors and upon his own experience as owner of the collection holding that plaintiffs allegations  that he was improperly paid for appearances at arbitration proceedings that he received highly negative performance evaluations that he was harassed by being required to perform tasks outside his job description that he received shorter notice of his termination than other employees and that he was terminated in retaliation for his eeoc complaint  each state a claim upon which relief can be granted under  1981 holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted