- 15 -
are comparable. In any event, the failure of either expert to
address this issue renders their conclusions unreliable to the
extent they involve pond comparables.
We believe there are additional substantial flaws in
petitioners’ expert’s report. First, petitioners’ expert decided
to include an estimated value of $7,800 for several piers
constructed by the lot owners and extending from their lots into
the water of the Canal. An obvious premise underlying this
position is that the Canal owner owned the piers. Yet neither
the expert nor petitioners on brief offer any support for that
legal conclusion or, indeed, even discuss it. In his report,
petitioners’ expert notes that he obtained the value he used for
the piers from the tax assessor’s office, which at least suggests
that for local property tax purposes the piers were not
considered to be part of the Canal parcel.7 There is certainly
support for the contrary conclusion; namely, that the piers were
the property of the lot owners. See, e.g., Sea Cabin On the
Ocean IV Homeowners Association v. City of North Myrtle Beach,
828 F. Supp. 1241 (D.S.C. 1993) (pier held to be an appurtenance
to the real property located above the mean high water mark). In
any event, on this record, petitioners have failed to show that
7 The tax-assessed value attributed to the Canal by the
Clarendon County Assessor in October 1988 was $1,000, whereas the
value placed on the 12 piers was approximately $650 each,
according to petitioners’ expert.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011