- 11 -
rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence would be inconsistent
with the spirit of our Rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In addition, Mr. Dicker’s testimony, even if deemed admissible,
would not persuade us to arrive at a different valuation since it
is not based on comparable transactions. We hold that Mr.
Dicker’s testimony as to the value of the Victorville property is
inadmissible.
II. Valuation
Both parties’ experts analyzed similar properties that were
recently sold in the proximate timeframe. The characteristics of
the properties were then compared to the Victorville property,
and adjustments in value were made to the comparable properties,
as appropriate. The experts in this case compared market
conditions, location, size, topography, access, frontage, offsite
improvements, and zoning.
Mr. Thompson selected the February 1996 sale of a 106.74-
acre parcel of primarily undeveloped land for $1.42 per square
foot (the Jess Ranch sale) as the most relevant comparable.
After adjustments, Mr. Thompson concluded that the Jess Ranch
sale indicated a value of $1.14 per square foot for the
Victorville property. He based his final valuation primarily on
this comparable analysis. Although he also considered the
various contingent offers that were made by Landfolio, and the
canceled sale contract between Mr. Dicker and the trustees, he
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