- 32 -
of $400,000 per lot. However, the next morning, on redirect
examination, Atkinson testified that $400,000 per lot was “a
typographical error.” Prompted by petitioner’s counsel, Atkinson
then testified that the value should have been $300,000 per lot.
The Court then received into evidence Atkinson’s notes that show
how he moved from $2,400,000 ($300,000 per lot for eight lots) to
an indicated value of $1,208,000. Atkinson’s notes as so
admitted conclude with the following: “13. I arbitrarily
selected a higher cost figure as I felt lots would sell at a
higher Price.”
Atkinson’s flip-flops and self-confessed arbitrariness
convince us that we should not give any weight to his conclusion
that the Quito Property’s indicated value under the cost approach
is $1,497,000; they also seriously undermine our willingness to
pay attention to his valuations of any of the Subject Properties.
We also view with some concern petitioner’s counsel’s
presentation of Atkinson’s expert witness report with the
$400,000-per-lot analysis, petitioner’s counsel’s supportive
questioning regarding Atkinson’s direct examination’s defense of
$400,000 per lot, and then Atkinson’s overnight conversion being
prompted by petitioner’s counsel.
Hulberg’s land development approach has some similarities
to, and some differences from, Atkinson’s cost approach.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011