Opinion ID: 365554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sales the commission rejected as comparable

Text: 36 The commission rejected three sales that the landowners' expert testified involved property comparable to the Dyar property. The owners assert that the commission did not adequately explain its basis for rejecting these sales. 37 The Dyar tract was a functioning farm unit. This gave it a higher value than unused fields. Only one of the sales accepted as comparable by the commission involved property employed as a functioning farm unit; yet, each of the properties involved in the three sales that the commission rejected as comparables was so utilized. The commission rejected one of them because it was an industrial sale; the property had been sold to a company for development of a fertilizer processing plant. The other two sales the commission refused to consider were dismissed with the conclusory statement that they were not of sufficient comparability to use. 38 The commission's refusal to consider the industrial sale was reasonable. However, no basis for its refusal to treat the other two sales as comparable is shown in the record. In fact, when the landowners' expert testified regarding these two sales, the commission indicated that it would view them as comparables. 39 These two sales were at prices of $750 per acre and $733 per acre, considerably higher than the prices of the other properties considered by the commission. Had these sales been considered, Dyar's compensation would have been greater. The commission's failure to adequately explain its refusal to consider these sales as comparables makes its report unacceptable.