- 47 -
matter. Although we are persuaded that the prices of all five of
Atkinson’s comparable properties and of four of Hulberg’s five
comparable properties should be adjusted upward because of the
floor area ratio, neither side’s expert helps us to decide the
magnitude of this adjustment.
The income method valuations of the Richard Property
constitute another setting in which the state of the record makes
our task difficult. Hulberg states that the Richard Property was
leased to a tenant as of the valuation date. Hulberg states that
he asked for, but did not receive, a copy of the lease.
Accordingly, Hulberg says, he valued the Richard Property without
regard to the lease, but warned that
The value of the leased fee interest in the property
could be the same, greater than, or less than the value
of the fee simple interest, depending on the terms of
the lease in effect as of the date of our valuation.
Atkinson says that “Although [the] lease had expired the rental
had been extended on a month to month basis for the same rent.”
On brief, petitioner asks us to find as follows:
d. Valuation of Richard Avenue Property. This
property was subject to a legally enforceable lease
with S.B. Machine Works (Transcript, p. 42) and the
rent it yielded was $1,500 and any valuation by
capitalization of income should reflect this income
figure. (Petitioner’s Exihibit [sic] 18).
The reference to transcript, p. 42, is to Hinz’s testimony,
as follows:
Q [Doyle] And how--and was–-at the time of your
mother’s death, was it rented to someone?
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011