Court Opinion

ID: 9719487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:54:12.167216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.724667
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Arterburn, J.
The result of the decision seems to me to be that land will have one value the day before a plat is recorded and another value on the day after the plat is filed in the Recorder’s office. I do not believe, the mere recording of a plat can have such effect upon the values of unplatted land in such a short time. I think that the purpose for which unplatted land may be used may be shown in evidence as affecting its value. It follows that a proposed method of subdividing the land, as shown by any plat and how it can thus be most effectively subdivided to enhance its value, is a matter for the consideration of the jury, whether recorded or not. If we hold otherwise, it behooves every owner of unplatted land to get a plat on file at once and before someone institutes condemnation proceedings. The fact that a plat is recorded or not recorded does not alter the value of land and its prospective use as platted real estate. Such evidence is competent for the jury to consider with other facts in determining a “fair market *314value.” Chandler et al. v. The City of Kokomo et al. (1894), 137 Ind. 295, 36 N. E. 847; The Ohio Valley Railway and Terminal Company v. Kerth (1892), 130 Ind. 314, 30 N. E. 298.