- 18 -
at a valuation, using this cost approach, of $340,000, an amount
that approximates his comparable sales value. Mr. Bollinger’s
cost replacement approach yields a value of $390,000, which is
close to his comparable sales value. As was the case with
comparable sales, the principal difference in the two cost
analyses arises from the different assumed values for the
underlying land. Mr. Schmidt values the underlying land at
$55,000, and Mr. Bollinger values it at $125,000. As noted
above, we have found the value of the underlying land to be
$100,000. When we substitute this value into each expert’s cost-
replacement analysis, we arrive at values that are close to
$375,000. We believe, however, that factors used in the cost-
replacement analyses are more speculative than those in the
comparable sales analyses. We conclude that the two appraisers’
cost replacement valuations are not as accurate as the $370,000
value derived by way of the comparable sales method.
We are concerned, however, that neither appraiser has taken
into account the closing of General Motors’ V-8 engine plant.
This facility, which employed more than 4,000 people, was located
half a mile from decedent’s restaurant. Mr. Schmidt’s appraisal
does not take this event into consideration because he prepared
the report before General Motors announced the closure. Mr.
Bollinger’s appraisal concluded that "Displacement of employees
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011