- 35 -
unconvinced that a discount rate extrapolated from one set of
indicated values, under assumptions inapplicable here, would
correspond to the discount rate extrapolated from a different set
of indicated values if the underlying assumptions were altered.
Moreover, even disregarding his faulty assumptions, Hultquist’s
present value computations are inadequately explained and
justified, particularly in regard to the manner in which he
derived the projected revenues from his hypothetical partitions
or forced sales and the manner in which he derived his chosen 14
percent equity yield for purposes of his present value
computations.
Respondent’s expert, Mr. Richard Parks (Parks), purported to
use a comparable sales approach to determine an appropriate
valuation discount for a 42-percent undivided interest in the
subject property. Parks indicated that because he was unable to
locate minority interest sales in the market where the subject
property is located, he had identified three other “appropriate
examples” involving: (1) A 1989 sale of an office building in
Birmingham, Alabama; (2) a 1961 sale of a 128-acre vacant tract
in Jefferson County, Alabama; and (3) a 1981 sale of a 1,600-acre
tract known as Bell Plantation (location not specifically
identified but apparently somewhere outside of Georgia). These
three “comparables” suggested discounts ranging from 25 percent
to 64 percent. With little explanation, Parks concludes that
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011