- 29 -
d. Conclusion
We conclude that the earthquake caused the foundation to
crack in 25 places and the floors to slope. We also conclude,
based primarily on the Graham & Kellam report, that the
foundation of petitioner's home could be repaired. However, we
believe a buyer would pay much less for a home in that condition
than he or she would pay for the same property undamaged. Even
though the Homeowners’ Association was liable for making some of
the repairs, we believe a prospective buyer would pay less for
this property than for identical property where no repairs were
required because of the possibility that it would take effort to
ensure that the work was done. We conclude that petitioner’s
home lost $115,000 in value because of the earthquake.
4. Personal Property
Petitioner’s personal property was also damaged by the
earthquake. She deducted $134,411 on her 1988 return for loss
to her personal property. She attached an appendix to her brief
showing that she had a personal property loss of $110,065. We
treat the appendix as petitioner's position in this case relating
to her personal property loss.
Petitioner compiled a detailed inventory of her personal
property that was damaged or destroyed as a result of the
earthquake. She spent 50 to 100 hours researching the cost of
the damaged items. Cohn said that the values petitioner used
were reasonable. Petitioner contends that, although she did not
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011