- 31 -
Neither expert used a comparable sale that the other one
did. Neither expert gave us a cogent reason to conclude that his
selection of comparable properties’ sales was better than the
other’s, that his adjustments were better than the other’s, or
that a per-lot computation, was better than a per-acre
computation, or vice versa.
Cost or Land Development Analysis
As best we can tell, what Atkinson describes as the “Cost
Approach” is essentially similar to what Hulberg describes as the
“Land Development Approach”. Both Atkinson and Hulberg used, in
their cost or land development analysis, sets of comparable
property sales that were different from the comparable property
sales they used in the basic comparable sales analysis.
Atkinson’s expert witness report states that
I have selected $400,000 per lot for eight lots [the number
of residential lots that both sides agree the Quito Property
would probably be subdivided into] as being a reasonable
retail lot value due to the location and the 18 to 24 months
it would take to have the lots ready to sell.
Atkinson’s expert witness report then goes on to state that the
indicated value by this approach is $1,497,000. Atkinson’s
expert witness report does not explain, or even briefly describe,
the process by which he moved from $3,200,000 ($400,000 per lot
for eight lots) to an indicated value of $1,497,000.
At trial, on direct examination, Atkinson attacked Hulberg’s
valuation of the Quito Property and contrasted it with his choice
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011