Opinion ID: 1239050
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Value of original trust and settlement lands

Text: Weiss's arguments concerning the valuation of the original trust lands focus on the mineral values of those lands. [13] The starting point for the superior court's consideration of the mineral values was the testimony of Weiss's expert, Dr. Paul Metz. Dr. Metz estimated the mineralized lands to be worth between $1.3 and $1.5 billion, exclusive of coal and industrial minerals. The Proponents attacked this estimate through the testimony of four expert witnesses. Applying their corrections to Dr. Metz's work, these witnesses testified that the value of the mineral portion of the original trust lands was between $80 and $119 million, or approximately ten percent of Dr. Metz's estimate. Considering this conflicting testimony, the superior court found that Dr. Metz overstate[d] the true value of the mineral lands. It concluded that, although the settlement land is not as valuable as the original mental health trust, the difference in value suggested by Dr. Metz's appraisal was not a real dollar loss. This conclusion undercut Weiss's position in two ways. First, it suggested that the other benefits of the settlement, such as the $200 million in cash and the establishment of the Trust Authority, would be adequate compensation for land not returned to the trust. Second, it supported the superior court's conclusion that Weiss faced a very high litigation risk of proving that the State owed as much as he claimed for the lands it removed from the trust. Weiss faults the superior court for failing to provide sufficient analysis of the expert testimony on mineral valuation and for ignoring rebuttal testimony. This argument is unpersuasive. The superior court specifically explained the analysis of each of the four experts critical of Dr. Metz's methodology. It also noted several of Dr. Metz's arguments in rebuttal. Contrary to Weiss's argument, the trial court's decision provides a clear understanding of the ground on which the trial court reached its decision, Sloan v. Jefferson, 758 P.2d 81, 86 (Alaska 1988), and reflects a detailed analysis of both sides of the valuation issue. Weiss also argues that the superior court erred by not accepting Dr. Metz's appraisal of the original trust lands. This argument fails for two reasons. First, the trial court in fact largely adopted Weiss's estimates in making its comparison between the settlement and the probable result of continued litigation, explicitly stating that the valuations given by Dr. Metz are useful when comparing two groups of mineralized land. Second, a trial court does not err simply by finding the testimony of one witness more convincing than that of another. Evans v. Evans, 869 P.2d 478, 480-81 (Alaska 1994). In arguing that the superior court overvalued the settlement lands, Weiss contends that, because only land no one maintained an objection to was included in the settlement, the posited surface values should ... be reduced to a fraction of their stated value. However, Weiss never argued and no witness testified to the trial court that such a reduction should be applied only to lands included in the settlement. Thus the trial court did not err by failing to reduce the value of the land as Weiss suggests.