Court Opinion

ID: 9679000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:38:00.518068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.506053
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
The expert witnesses called by the plaintiff Iske were allowed to testify as to value based upon the capitalization of income. A part of the income was to be derived from lots rented for recreational purposes.
At least one expert witness assumed that the property would be developed in accordance with a plan described by the witness Thompson. But there was no evidence to correlate the operations under the Gerhold Company lease with the development suggested by Thompson. The defendant produced evidence that the island could not be developed to conform to the Thompson plan during the production of sand and gravel. The result was that there was no adequate provision for the cost of development for recreational purposes, and a failure to consider a major cost involved in the production of the income. That part of the testimony which was based upon the capitalization of lot rentals should have been excluded.