- 9 -
(about $3,500 per acre). Respondent challenges the reliability
of Cobb’s appraisal on several grounds. Respondent argues that
three of the sale transactions used to support the valuation of
tract A are unrepresentative because two of the properties are
located within the city limits of Greenwood, where residential
development is more advanced than in the immediate environs of
the subject property, and the third is known to have been sold to
a developer for residential subdivision. The weakness in this
argument is that respondent concedes that the other sales
comparables used by Cobb to value tract A and tract B are
unbiased and consistent with the fair market value determined by
her own expert, and yet all of these properties were also located
in Greenwood and some were intended for immediate residential
development, like the comparables which respondent believes to be
unrepresentative.
Respondent also points out the large discrepancy between the
$593,000 value Cobb assigns to tract as of 1990 and the $228,500
price at which it was acquired by the Maschmeyers in 1989. Cobb
explained this discrepancy by the fact that the Maschmeyers
acquired tract A in the settlement of an estate; hence in his
view the price of that acquisition had not reflected the
property’s fair market value. A more serious problem in Cobb’s
appraisal is the discrepancy between his values for tract A
($4,800 per acre) and tract B ($2,200 per acre). The only
important difference between the tracts is that one has access to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011