- 44 -
then his conclusion as to date-of-death value should be reduced
by about $250,000 to reflect the expectation of 3 years (decedent
died on May 4, 1992; the lease renewal term expired on May 31,
1995) of below-market rental income.
The Parker Property immediately adjoins the Lafayette
Property. In substantially all respects, the Parker Property’s
value indicia are the same as those of the Lafayette Property.
Compare our findings of fact as to the Lafayette Property with
those as to the Parker Property supra. The Parker Property is
about 27.3 percent the size of the Lafayette Property. Because
smaller properties in that area were worth more per square foot
than larger properties, we conclude that the Parker Property was
worth more than 27.3 percent of the value of the Lafayette
Property. The then-current rent under the Parker Property lease
was about 40 percent as much as the then-current rent under the
Lafayette Property lease, another factor nudging upward the value
of the Parker Property. Also, the building improvements on the
Parker Property were about as large as those on the Lafayette
Property. Under these circumstances, we believe it is not
fruitful to set forth in any greater detail the concerns we have
as to the experts’ presentations.
We conclude, and we have found, that the fair market value
of the Parker Property on the date of decedent’s death was $1.2
million.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011