- 29 -
comparables for location in order to determine the value of the
Litton building.
The conclusory statements in Mr. Cantrell's report that the
Litton building was of a superior construction to LB1, LB2, LB4,
and LB5 do not explain how the Litton building was superior. Mr.
Cantrell made positive adjustments to LB1, LB2, LB4, and LB5 of
30 percent, 10 percent, 30 percent, and 20 percent, respectively,
for the Litton building's superior construction. He made no
adjustment, however, to LB3 even though he noted it was newer
than the Litton building.
Dr. Friedman, however, explained that LB1 was inferior
because it was a metal exterior building, and therefore he made a
10-percent positive adjustment to LB1. Dr. Friedman also noted
that LB3 was a superior quality building due to its age and
modern quality construction standards. Therefore, he applied a
20-percent negative adjustment.
We are unconvinced by Mr. Cantrell's unexplained quality
adjustments and shall not apply his adjustments for quality in
order to determine the value of the Litton building. We are
persuaded by Dr. Friedman's quality adjustments and shall use
them in order to determine the value of the Litton building.
Mr. Cantrell also adjusted the comparables for size. He
applied a positive adjustment of 10 percent to the one comparable
(LB1) that was larger than the Litton building and applied
negative adjustments of 10 percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent to
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