- 13 -
With respect to the 1.25-acre strip of land above water,
petitioners’ expert estimated the size of the strip based on a
visit to the Canal and examination of tax assessor maps. He
valued the strip of land as follows: He measured the total
waterfront footage of all lots on the Canal at 3,650 feet. He
then summed the total sales prices of all the lots between March
1975 and December 10, 1990, which produced a figure of $368,900.
He then divided the latter by the former to establish an average
cost per waterfront foot of $101.07. He then discounted this
number by 85 percent, producing a value of $15.16 per waterfront
foot, or $55,334 for the strip (3,650 feet x $15.16).
The value of the Canal, therefore, under petitioners’
expert’s computations, was the sum of the value of the piers
($7,800), the value of the land under water ($9,625), and the
value of the strip of land above water ($55,334), for a total of
$72,759, which he rounded down to $72,500.
C. Court’s Analysis
Valuing this parcel of property was no doubt a challenge for
both experts in this case, given its highly unusual, if not
unique, characteristics. Nonetheless, the Court’s review of both
experts’ theories reveals that they cannot hold water.
We start with the use of ponds as comparables. Although we
appreciate the dilemma faced by the experts, we do not accept the
premise that a pond is comparable to the Canal. The owner of a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011