- 33 -
A potential purchaser, cognizant that in a ten year old
subdivision where there is "no reasonable definitive
pattern of recent sales and pricing," would anticipate
that extended marketing periods would be encountered on
unsold remaining inventory and that holding costs would
be incurred.
With respect to point (4) above, we also agree with Mr. Egan that
if an absorption analysis that was market and property
specific had been performed "pertinent market activity"
would have come to light. Such an analysis would have
tested the sensitivity of zoning, size and location.
By his [Mr. Guice's] own admission, there was "not a
reasonable pattern of market activity or market ex-
pectations for said properties." This is precisely why
a normal marketing period would not have been expected
and an orderly sell-off over time needed to be con-
sidered.
Mr. Guice also failed to explain satisfactorily, inter alia,
why an absorption discount should apply to certain unimproved
real properties owned by Marrero Land on the valuation date but
not to the remaining unimproved real properties that it owned on
that date, which were in the same geographic market and some of
which had the same types of zoning and were directly contiguous
to the unimproved real properties to which he applied a dis-
counted cash-flow analysis which included an absorption discount.
Mr. Guice admitted at trial that the fact that real properties
are not contiguous does not determine whether or not to apply a
discounted cash-flow analysis which included an absorption
discount, and he conceded that he had applied such a discounted
cash-flow analysis to certain real properties that were not
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011