S.W. DePasture - Page 12





                                       - 11 -                                         
          improvements as set forth in Mr. Searcy’s “cost approach to                 
          value” to his “final reconciliation of value” of $125,000 results           
          in an allocation between land and improvements in the respective            
          amounts of $70,887 and $54,113.                                             
               According to respondent’s expert, Harry Smith, the fair                
          market value of the Mystic Lake property as of the date of                  
          the distribution was $168,489, allocated between land and                   
          improvements in the respective amounts of $48,102 and $120,387.             
          Mr. Smith estimated the fair market value of the largest of the             
          four structures to be $38,670.                                              
               Respondent’s estimate of the fair market value of the Mystic           
          Lake property as of the date of the distribution exceeds                    
          petitioner’s estimate by $43,489.8  This difference is the result           
          of several factors; however, it closely approximates the value of           
          the largest of the four structures as valued by Mr. Smith.  Mr.             
          Searcy assigned no value to this structure because he determined            
          that it was functionally obsolete on the relevant date.                     
               As we view the matter, petitioner’s expert erred by failing            
          to assign any value to the largest of the four structures located           
          on the property.  Other evidence in the record, including                   
          petitioner’s testimony, demonstrates that this building had been            
          renovated and was in use at the time the property was                       

               8 Curiously enough, petitioner’s estimate of the fair market           
          value of the land is actually higher than respondent’s estimate             
          of the value of the land.                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011