Estate of Ethel Josephine Spowart Hinz - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          storage uses.  Other permitted uses included light manufacturing,           
          warehouses, laboratories, offices, and incidental retail sales.             
               All utilities were available to the Parker Property.  The              
          Parker Street frontage was partially improved with curbs,                   
          gutters, and streetlights, and the Lafayette Street frontage was            
          improved with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights.                  
               The Parker Property was improved with buildings that                   
          provided office space, storage space, and shop space.9                      
               At decedent’s death, the Parker Property was leased to                 
          Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes                
          referred to as Pacific), a roofing company,10 for $1,500 per                
          month.  The original lease was for 10 years and expired on May              
          31, 1990.  At the expiration of the lease’s initial term and at             
          decedent’s death, Pacific was holding over on a 5-year extension,           


          9    Petitioner’s expert witness report discusses an office                 
          building (4,854 sq. ft.), a machine shop (7,200 sq. ft.), and               
          lumber storage buildings (1,200 sq. ft.), for a total of 13,254             
          square feet of building improvements.  Respondent’s expert                  
          witness report discusses an office building (3,058 sq. ft.) and a           
          storage shed (5,662 sq. ft.), for a total of 8,720 square feet of           
          building improvements.  Neither side has favored us with a                  
          reconciliation of these widely divergent descriptions or an                 
          attempt to show why that side’s description is more accurate than           
          the other side’s description.                                               

          10   Petitioner’s expert witness report states that the Parker              
          Property was “leased to a trucking company.”  Our finding that              
          the Parker Property was leased to a roofing company is contrary             
          to this statement in the expert witness report and is based on              
          (1) Hinz’ testimony and (2) a copy of the lease attached to the             
          same expert witness report.                                                 





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011