- 41 -
thought that environmental concerns would drive the value of the
Lafayette Property down in the market by $600,000.19
Doing the best we can with a record that, although fairly
extensive is also fairly murky, we conclude, and we have found,
that the fair market value of the Lafayette Property on the date
of decedent’s death was $3.7 million.
C. Parker Property
Atkinson valued the Parker Property using three approaches:
(1) The comparable sales approach; (2) the income approach; and
(3) the cost approach. Under the latter two approaches, Atkinson
valued the land component of the Parker Property using the
comparable sales approach.
Hulberg valued the Parker Property using the comparable
sales approach and the income approach. He considered, but
rejected, the cost approach.20
19 Hulberg valued the Lafayette Property at $4,020,000. He
then subtracted $60,000 for environmental concerns to arrive at
his final valuation of $3,960,000. To go from $4,020,000 to his
earlier-stated final valuation of $3,417,000, he would have had
to attribute $603,000 to environmental concerns. Atkinson’s
estimate of the impact of environmental concerns was only
$132,000.
20 Hulberg gives the following reasoning for rejecting the cost
approach for the Parker Property.
The cost approach is not considered to be an applicable
approach for older buildings such as the subject
property. This is due to a number of factors, the most
important being the lack of support for a detailed
estimate of the depreciation, and lack of knowledge of
the exact condition of the property as of our valuation
(continued...)
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011