- 34 -
contiguous to each other and that therefore did not constitute a
subdivision.
Mr. Guice acknowledged in a deposition which was taken by
the estate prior to the trial in this case and which was read
into the record at that trial that if an attempt were made to
sell as one unit certain of the parcels of real estate owned by
Marrero on the valuation date, an absorption discount would have
to be applied. He also acknowledged at trial that he would have
applied an absorption discount if several parcels of land that
comprised the remaining unimproved real properties were sold as
one unit. In addition, Mr. Guice admitted at trial that there
generally is a difference between valuing individual parcels of
real estate separately and valuing an entire portfolio of parcels
as a whole.
Furthermore, Mr. Guice admitted at trial that an absorption
discount analysis involves considering the time that it takes to
sell property in relation to the time value of money. That is to
say, cash today is worth more than cash in hand in the future.
Mr. Guice also acknowledged that, for purposes of valuing mul-
tiple parcels of vacant land, it is necessary to discount the
cash flow to be derived from the sale of those parcels.
In Mr. Guice's rebuttal report, which contains inappropriate
references to and attachments of matters that were the subject of
settlement discussions between the parties in this case, Mr.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011