- 26 -
$50,000 for each unit he expected to be approved in excess of
250. Geller’s computation of the $50,000 amounts for excess
units was chosen based on the 1997 planning board approval for
360 units.7
We do not use the 360 housing unit approval figure because
it was not foreseeable by the parties to the June 1994 agreement
or as of the date of decedent’s death. Considering property set
asides for streets, utilities, and unusable portions, 250 units
seems a reasonable estimate for a base figure. In addition, the
parties to the June 1994 agreement used 250 as their base amount
and provided for premium increases to the price to be paid only
if approval for more than 250 units occurred. Normally a cash
price is not discounted for the passage of time in the context of
a fair market valuation as of a date certain. It would be
appropriate, however, to discount the cash price here due to the
expected time delay in obtaining approval for development.8 We
note that the parties anticipated that the contract price should
7 In addition to the $50,000 excess unit amounts, Geller
factored in the $10,000 and $5,000 amounts, but we do not
consider those part of the contract price because they appear to
be payments to maintain the seller’s rights and to compensate the
buyer for keeping the property under contract. To some extent,
those amounts address the question of time value and,
accordingly, it would be duplicative to make them a part of the
contract price or present value computation.
8 We assume that Ponderosa would not have entered into this
contract unless it expected to gain approval, and any risk that
approval would not be obtained was de minimis or remote.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011