Assemblage

[Amy Perkins]

My question would be, "Does an owner have a right to compensation from an acquistion that does not include his property." This would be the agency acquiring property and converting it into commercial use thereby causing external obsolescence to the adjoining parcel. However, if the property owner acquired the land after the improvements were made, they already bought it at a discount.

Secondly, the before and after appraisal is loss regarding "severance damages." These are damages to the remainder of the property and is compensation paid in addition to "market value."

I thought that the highest market value was paid because the owner did not have a choice and is not a willing seller.

 

[Fred]

Steven,

Condemnation certainly doesnt meet the test of a willing seller .. and to that end, the courts here have ruled that the owner is entitled to the highest price. Why wouldnt they be? They didnt ask for their property to be in the path of a taking area. In pure common sense terms it allows the owner to be compensated in the best possible manner.

They certainly ought to ask for their property to be in the path of condemnation. You make it sound like hitting the lottery. I wonder how many zeroes one gets to tack on before the "highest" price and "best possible maner" are exceeded.

You do understand that the federal courts, and I would think nearly all the other states, do not engage in such tomfoolery?

 

[PropertyEconomics]

They certainly ought to ask for their property to be in the path of condemnation. You make it sound like hitting the lottery. I wonder how many zeroes one gets to tack on before the "highest" price and "best possible maner" are exceeded.

You do understand that the federal courts, and I would think nearly all the other states, do not engage in such tomfoolery?

Perhaps you have taken it to an extreme Steven. It is merely that among the reasonable sales that are comparable to the subject the owner of the property is entitled to the subjects highest value. Now were one to use sales that were not comparable its quite a different story.
Its certainly not a lottery win.

 

[Fred]

Perhaps you have taken it to an extreme Steven. It is merely that among the reasonable sales that are comparable to the subject the owner of the property is entitled to the subjects highest value. Now were one to use sales that were not comparable its quite a different story.
Its certainly not a lottery win.

Perhaps I have. I remember my "mentor" once saying, "slightly subjective." I quickly acknowledged that his machinery had gears I just didn't have. So, I guess "highest price" is somewhere in excess of most likely price, lean toward a slighly unlikely price and at least one penny short of Skippydom? Or is that "slightly" into Skippydom, depending on who does the appraisal?

You have case law on this? - "subject's highest value."

Maybe they could use condemnation as a cure of the mortgage "crisis." You'd have enough left over after taking, and after paying your 110% mortgage, to be able to make a substantial downpayment on your next home.

I am not picking on you, PE. I am just having my morning yuk at the expense NM juris (im)prudence.

 

[larry b]

I suggest that you check your statutes regarding project influence. Typically, any enhancement or diminution in value caused by the project, or announcement thereof, must be dissregarded in estimating the market value (which would be synonymous with recommended compensation). Otherwise, claims could be made the value is "infinite" via assemblage; or "worthless" considering house in middle of parking lot. My $.02 worth.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I suggest that you check your statutes regarding project influence. Typically, any enhancement or diminution in value caused by the project, or announcement thereof, must be dissregarded in estimating the market value (which would be synonymous with recommended compensation). Otherwise, claims could be made the value is "infinite" via assemblage; or "worthless" considering house in middle of parking lot. My $.02 worth.

I would think you are absolutely correct Larryb. Good post.