- 22 -
that the foregoing transactions are not reliable in determining
the Property's FMV.
Lambert made other analytical errors as well. Among the
more noteworthy, Vacant Land Sale No. 2 was not actually vacant
but contained a metal warehouse and small office building.
Lambert assigned a value of only $10,000 to these 2 buildings,
which had the effect of inflating the amount paid for the
underlying land. He neither inspected the interiors nor measured
the dimensions of the buildings. He viewed the buildings only
through a fence from adjoining property. We do not think that
this transaction is a reliable indicator of FMV.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, Lambert included an
entrepreneurial fee of $114,500 under the replacement-cost
approach. We believe that such a fee is inappropriate given the
depressed economic situation in Lafayette at the time of sale.
Lambert himself acknowledged that, as of March 31, 1987, had the
land been vacant, it would not have been feasible for an
entrepreneur to have constructed buildings of the type on the
Property.
Equally troubling in our view are the numerous and
substantial alterations Lambert made to the data contained in his
report at trial. Among other things, Lambert reduced the
estimated value per square foot of Vacant Land Sale No. 3 from
$2.45 to $1.89 after acknowledging that he had used the wrong
size of the parcel in his initial estimate. For Lease Comparable
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011