Opinion ID: 1730025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: lane's house (parcel xxxxxxxxx)

Text: This is a single-family home occupied by Lane Darnall and his family, who have lived there since the home was built in 1992. It has a 100-percent masonry veneer exterior and an area of 1,555 square feet. The assessor's data listed its quality as Fair +, meaning that it was between fair and average quality. The assessor rated the condition of the home as Average. The 2004 assessed valuation was $101,492. There was no allowance for locational depreciation, because the assessor did not consider it to be close enough to the feedlot. Gary, who is Lane's father, testified that Lane's house was built at a cost of approximately $64,000, and there had been no major remodeling prior to 2004. Gary testified that the house is located across the road and about one-eighth of a mile from the feedlot which has a capacity of 20,000 head of cattle. He also testified that vibration from the 20 to 25 trucks going by the house each day have caused cracking of its walls and foundation. He stated that cattle are located on all sides of the house. Gary testified that there had been extensive electrical problems in the home since a 1999 lightning strike. In his opinion, the value of the home in 2004 was $52,264. Lane, who is the general manager for production of DRI, agreed that cattle regularly graze on all sides of his home. He testified that heavy truck traffic to the feedlot located one-eighth of a mile from his home causes cracking in the drywall and basement walls. He believes that the home receives above average wear due to the presence of his teenage children and foreign exchange students hosted by his family. Lane expressed his lay opinion that the quality of the home is fair and that the condition is fair to low. In arriving at the claimed value of $52,264, Lane applied a 50-percent locational depreciation due to the proximity to the feedlot. Newell personally inspected Lane's house in November 2003. In her opinion, the quality of the home was fair, due to material and workmanship which were below market standards. She also rated the condition of the home as fair, due to evidence of deferred maintenance. She also testified that the proximity of the home to the feedlot should be considered in determining its value, but she did not quantify this opinion or express any opinion as to the value of the home in 2004.