Commissioner Finch testified that the property could not be divided without manifest prejudice to one or more of the parties because the views, access, and topography vary on the site. He also stated that the property would be most valuable as a single site. Commissioner Fortune testified that the property could be divided and equity achieved through the payment of owelty. He thought the property would be more valuable divided into two, three, or four lots rather than maintained as a single site. Another appraiser, called as a witness by defendants, also testified that the property could be divided without manifest prejudice to the parties if owelty was paid to equalize the values.
Defendants appeal arguing that the court gave the majority commissioners too much deference.
We agree and reverse. Because we reverse on this issue, we need not address the remaining issues raised by defendants. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that the appeal is moot. On November 25, defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay pending appeal. However, the trial court did not enter the stay until December 31.