-22-
property itself, with no further explanation or analysis, causes
us considerable concern.
Mr. White adjusted the sales prices of the comparable
properties to account for differences between the comparable
properties and the subject property. Based on his assessment of
the comparable sales, Mr. White concluded under the sales
comparison approach that the subject property had an adjusted
land value of $2,000 per acre and that the subject property’s
value was $59,800 for the land alone as of the date of
contribution.
Under the cost approach, Mr. White, like Mr. Fischer, used
the Marshall-Swift method to find the value of the buildings new
and then adjusted the value of each structure to account for
physical depreciation. Unlike Mr. Fischer, however, Mr. White
did not adjust the building value for physical or economic
obsolescence. We question why Mr. White did not discount the
value for economic and functional obsolescence. Mr. White
admitted at trial that economic obsolescence included the
inability to operate the property economically, and Mr. White
knew that the subject property could not be operated as a
monastery on a cost effective basis based on the experiences of
the Monks Nonprofit.12 Yet, faced with these circumstances, Mr.
White did not adjust his values for economic obsolescence.
12About 18 of the 30 acres of the subject property are dry
cropland and about 12 acres are pasture. Mr. White testified
that he did not believe hunting, farming, or ranching uses of the
subject property would be profitable either.
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