Opinion ID: 1807005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The validity of the 1968 appraisal.

Text: Appellant contends that the 1968 appraisal made by Evans shows that many factors were not considered as required and that several errors were made by Evans in his computations. Among its contentions, appellant argues: 1. Evans ignored improvements made by Hendrickson just prior to his sale of the property to appellant in 1965. 2. Mr. Evans also completely ignored the valuable lease rights of the appellant with the Milwaukee Road. 3. Mr. Evans erred in believing that the property was vacant after 1965. 4. Evans' 1967 appraisal report contained an error of $142,000, which was subsequently corrected. The appraised value was still the same$200,000. 5. In the 1967 appraisal Evans used the 1967 real estate taxes; in June, 1968, he used the 1968 taxes, although the necessary tax information was not available until November or December. 6. Evans ignored the WARF letter of April 24, 1968. 7. Evans used an incorrect depreciation factor of 42 percent. We have examined the record in detail and are satisfied that there is no merit in any of these assertions or indeed in any others made by appellant. Appellant argues that although Evans used two comparable sales, he neglected to use later sales of the same properties closer in time to the condemnation. With reference to the Century House property the later sale was not used because it involved what Evans thought was a holdup price following from the fact that this last piece of property was necessary to complete the acquisition of property for a planned project. With respect to the Lombardino property, the later price on this parcel was considered by Evans to be slightly inflated since the purchaser was in need of parking contiguous to his business. In addition, this sale occurred after the date of taking here. In the end, the jury did not award $200,000 as per the Evans' appraisal, but $220,900, which clearly indicates it gave consideration to the appraisals made by appellant's experts as well as to the opinion of Mr. Evans. The jury must have made some adjustments in his figures. Thus, the verdict, by any reasonable view of the credible evidence presented, is amply supported and is well within the range of values established by the valid expert opinion before the jury. As a second issue on this appeal, appellant urges that the trial court's decision on motions after verdict indicates that the judge had made his mind up before the motions were presented. This argument is without merit. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.