- 35 -
Guice does not set forth a reasoned analysis in rebuttal to the
analysis of Mr. Egan. Instead, in his rebuttal report, Mr.
Guice's criticism of the aggregate fair market value of the
remaining unimproved real properties that Mr. Egan determined
appears to be grounded in Mr. Guice's conclusion that the value
arrived at by Mr. Egan simply was too low, especially when
considered in relation to the aggregate value of the remaining
unimproved real properties that Mr. Egan had determined in his
valuation analysis before he applied an absorption discount and
before the parties agreed to stipulate to the aggregate value of
those properties without applying such a discount.11
On the instant record, Mr. Guice has failed to persuade us
that no absorption discount should be applied to any of the
remaining unimproved real properties. We did not find Mr.
Guice's opinion as to the aggregate fair market value of those
properties to be reliable, and we shall not rely on it in making
that determination.
According to Mr. Egan, in attempting to value multiple real
properties, it is necessary to determine the length of time that
it would take to sell such properties and, depending on market
11Upon questioning by the Court, Mr. Egan indicated that he
would use the methodology described in his expert report regard-
less whether or not the parties had agreed to an aggregate value
of the remaining unimproved real properties that was higher or
lower than the value to which they ultimately stipulated.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011