- 45 -
of donation of $1,131,438, which represented a 55 percent
reduction in the $2,057,160 before value of the property. Boyett
concluded that the highest and best use before the easement was
primarily recreational, with some nominal grazing and timber
harvesting. Accordingly, he concluded that the easement had a
fair market value at the time of donation of $407,000, which
represented a 20 percent reduction in the $2,035,00016 before
value of the property.
We note that both experts agree that the before-and-after
method should be used to determine the fair market value of the
easement, that recreational use was part of the before and after
highest and best use, and that the highest and best post-easement
use was primarily recreational and secondarily agricultural.
They further agree that easements generally are segregated into
three categories, and that each category is related to the amount
of loss in value the property incurs due to the easement's use
restrictions; the more restrictive an easement, the greater the
percentage decrease of value to the encumbered property. The
difference between both experts' opinions turns on their
estimation of the property's highest and best use before the
easement was granted and on the after value of the property.
16 The $22,160 difference in the experts' before values is
attributable to the fact that, in his comparable sales analysis,
Boyett merely relied on the purchase price allocations of another
appraiser, whereas Wheeler performed his own independent inquiry
to determine the purchase price allocations. On brief,
respondent concedes that $2,057,160 was the fair market value of
the property before the easement was granted.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011