644 F.3d at 1317 (quoting United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 701 Advisory Committee Note to the 2000 Amendment)). Accordingly, that Rule 701 may authorize a witness to give a lay opinion on the value of his property does not mean that a landowner has carte blanche to espouse any opinion he pleases on the value of his land, free from the constraints of Rule 702 and Daubert. If an owner’s testimony on value is based not upon commonly understood considerations of worth flowing from his perceptions and knowledge of his property but instead upon technical or specialized knowledge more broadly, it crosses into expert testimony for purposes of Rule 702 and cannot be admitted under Rule 701(c). See James River Ins. Co., 658 F.3d at 1213-16 (<HOLDING>); Compania Administradora de Recuperacion de
holding that district court abused its discretion in allowing member of llc that owned building to testify to its value under rule 701 where his opinion had relied upon technical depreciation calculations the principals professional experience as a real estate broker and a detailed technical report created by a retained appraisal company holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact