Court Opinion

ID: 9665438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:48:42.939797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.841250
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. We have here a situation in which a firm interested in development of suburban property purchased a large tract, sold a portion of it to another related firm, and through that firm secured the construction of a shopping center. The development of the shopping center would necessarily facilitate development of the rest of the tract purchased. This renders suspect the principal matters urged by the owner as the owner could well afford to give unduly preferential terms to the concern constructing the shopping center. It could afford to rent to the shopping center concern on terms extraordinarily reasonable, and also to enter into an option to sell to such concern on a basis below actual value. The price fixed in the option is not conclusive. No one would pay more for the property than the option price, but if the option were sold with the land it might vastly increase actual value. Actual value is based on land free of encumbrances such as an option.
The owner’s expert witnesses based their valuations largely on an income basis. In doing so they considered only the $8,000 annual rental. Ignored were two factors. First, as part of the rent lessee was required to pay taxes. Second, the possibility of rentals increasing by reason of the 15 percent of overage rentals received by the shopping center concern from its tenants.
The use to which land is or can be put has a definite effect upon its value. Usage as a shopping center vastly increases the value of land over what it was in a vacant or unimproved state.
I conclude that the evidence fails to sustain the judgment of the District Court.