- 51 -
purchasers of apartment complexes on or before the applicable
valuation date. Eighth, he cites in his report numerous sales in
1990 through 1992 in which property sold for less than its appraised
value, yet tells us almost nothing about the manner in which the
appraised values were ascertained, let alone the situs or description
of the property sold.
We also have concerns with the testimony of Mr. Hodge.
The thrust of his opinion is that the apartment complexes had an
appeal to investors outside the Genesee County area, and, that, given
this fact, the apartment complexes were readily marketable. Although
we agree with Mr. Hodge that potential buyers may come from outside
Genesee County, we simply do not believe that this fact, standing
alone, means that a market absorption discount is inapplicable to
this case. We also have trouble with his conclusion that "investment
vehicles" usually purchase large apartment complexes such as the ones
at hand. As a point of fact, only one of the five "comparable"
complexes referenced by the appraisers in their analysis of the sales
comparison method sold to an entity rather than an individual.
Finding none of the experts dispositive to our decision in this
case,16 we address the issue on the basis of the record before us,
16 Mr. Pollack was merely a rebuttal witness, and he
testified only to the fact that he would have needed 3 to 10
years to sell the apartments complexes. His testimony does not
mean that another broker, working alone or in concert with other
brokers, would have been unable to sell the apartment complexes
(continued...)
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011