- 15 -
Skyland as replacement properties during the identification
period. During that period, petitioners did not inform anyone,
either verbally or in writing, that they were interested in
either property. Petitioners first expressed an interest in
acquiring Pleasant Hill in January 1990 when the property was
brought to their attention by Mr. Van Voorhis. Petitioner
husband may have briefly discussed Pleasant Hill with Mr. Fivey
during the identification period. However, petitioner husband
concedes that he did not indicate to Mr. Fivey any intention to
acquire Pleasant Hill as replacement property until after the
identification period had expired. Petitioners first indicated
their interest in the Skyland property on October 12, 1989.
Petitioners claim that they drove by the house with a real estate
agent in the summer of 1989 while it was under construction.
They did not express an interest in purchasing Skyland at that
time. They also contend that they drove by both properties by
themselves on several occasions and that petitioner husband
viewed the construction site.
However, there is no evidence, other than their testimony,
that petitioners considered purchasing these properties or
expressed an interest in the properties during the identification
period. Throughout the end of 1989, petitioners made a number of
offers and entered into purchase contracts on other properties as
replacements for the Antioch property, including an offer in
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011