- 22 -
owners would be likely to pay anywhere near this amount, which
represents approximately 25 percent of the average purchase price
of the lots. Under respondent's value, the lot owners would
collectively pay $5,950, or a little more than $200 each. This,
we believe, represents a more realistic estimate of the nuisance
value of the Canal owner's speculative property rights.
The Canal parcel only came into existence as a result of
inadvertence. Any owner of the Canal could not restrict public
access to the Canal waters from Lake Marion. As to a Canal
owner's right to restrict the adjacent lot owners' water access
from their lots, the record amply demonstrates that any such
nuisance value was speculative and subject to a significant
litigation hazard. The Canal's first owner abandoned it, and
petitioners gave it away, rather than confront the litigation
almost certainly entailed in any effort to realize value from the
property rights conferred by Canal ownership. Based on our
review of all the evidence with respect to the Canal, we conclude
that respondent's determination of a value of $5,950 is better
supported than petitioners’ and that petitioners have failed to
prove that the value was any greater than the amount conceded by
respondent. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination
of value.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011