Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Intangible assets

Text: ¶ 27. As previously noted, Stokes valued Dedeaux's intangible assets at $255,202, while Elliott's valuation was $2,320,088 (consisting of $1,494,700 in projected CIAC; $800,388 in projected cash flow; and $25,000 in transitional assistance). ¶ 28. The parties do not dispute that the present value of future cash flow is a requisite intangible-asset consideration. As the trial judge stated, [t]here is no doubt the case law provides that future revenue is an element of damages in these type lawsuits for eminent domain proceedings. See Bear Creek, 416 So.2d at 403 (referring to the likelihood of future revenues); Sackman, Nichols on Eminent Domain § 15.07, at 15-48 to 15-49 (referencing future earnings). But the parties do dispute the proper methodology to be used in determining the present value of future cash flow. The parties also disagree as to whether the present value of future CIAC is a proper intangible-asset consideration.