Court Opinion

ID: 9662285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:04:47.64005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.357575
License: Public Domain

HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
The State takes the position that the lessee’s interest, whatever amount it may be, must be paid from the award for the total and full fair value of the expropriated property.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I am constrained to disagree.
Mr. Fulco used the following method:' — • The appraisement of the land and reproduction cost of improvements, less the depreciation. He concluded that the property taken had a value of $35,750.00.
Mr. Dean used the income approach, i. e., the economic .rental as a basis for capitalization. He concluded that the property taken had a value of $35,950.00 — a difference of only $200.00.
The majority opinion agrees with the courts below that the value of the property is $37,442.76, but that the claim of the lessees of $12,000.00 is to be deducted from that award.
Thus, it is clear to me that the owners will not receive the full fair value of the expropriated property; they will lose $12,000.00 thereof.
I am of the opinion that the courts below have rendered fair and equitable judgments between the parties in an unusual factional situation and that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed.
I respectfully dissent.