- 37 -
that land use restrictions might yield to development of parcel
10, we find that the parcel had more than nominal value.
However, we cannot agree with Mr. Hamel that parcel 10 had a per-
acre value equal to that of the other Nipomo properties.
2. Decedent's Pro Rata Interest
The parties agree as to decedent's percentages of pro rata
ownership of the Nipomo properties, except with respect to parcel
10. We find that decedent owned 100 percent of parcel 10. In
their respective briefs, petitioner asserted that decedent's
ownership was “not specified”, and respondent asserted that it
was 100 percent. In the statutory notice, respondent specified
whether a partial interest was associated with each property and
did not so specify with regard to parcel 10. In its petition,
petitioner alleged that respondent erred as to his valuation of
parcel 10 as follows: “i. The fair market value of a 6.99 acre
parcel of land in a hole at the southwest corner of Highway 154
and Bull Canyon Road * * * was $0.00.” The record lacks any
evidence that indicates that decedent owned less than a fee
simple interest in parcel 10, even assuming that petitioner
alleged error with respect to this issue by amended pleading.
See Rule 41(b). Thus, we sustain respondent's determination of
decedent's ownership interest in parcel 10, see Rule 142(a),
although, as indicated above, we do not sustain respondent’s
determination of the parcel’s value.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011