Eminent Domain Case

[timd354]

I would have thrown them both out and got a neutral third appraisal.

No one cares what you would have done, what matters is whether the law was followed and it is very doubtful that the law would allow the judge to simply throw out both appraisals at his discretion and obtain a third appraisal. There was a trial which presumably followed the prescribed procedures specified by Ohio law and after listening to all of the evidence presented, a jury determined that the property owners were entitled to $1.4 million in damages. Without having seen any of the evidence (including the appraisal reports) it is nothing more than silly speculation to conclude that there must be something fishy going on.

 

[hastalavista]

Yes, aside from the 0.338 acres taken, the Turnpike Commission also obtained easements across the remainder of the property:

The Turnpike Commission took 0.338 acres of property owned by the Abraham family in Amherst so it could fill in an overpass and eliminate a turnpike bridge, O’Toole said. The Turnpike Commission also sought additional permanent and temporary easements.

Yeah, that makes sense (I didn't read the link).

As an aside (and I've said this before), if I were a residential appraiser with sufficient remaining runway in my career, I'd do everything I could to get into eminent domain appraising.
Obviously, some markets are better suited for that work than others. In my area, there is a lot of work. And I still may consider diving in (likely, working for the property owner rather than an agency, but to get a mix of both would be ideal). But, in my area, I see it as a largely untapped potential on the residential side.

 

[djd09]

a jury determined that the property owners were entitled to $1.4 million in damages.

At least read the article. They weren't awarded 1.4.

 

[timd354]

At least the article. They weren't awarded 1.4.

Yes, the were awarded $1.092 million, not that that makes any difference to anything that was posted in this thread.

 

[hastalavista]

And by the way, as I've been told, in California, the property owner has the right to order an appraisal and is reimbursed by the state to something on the order of $2,500 for that expense.
I'm not saying a simple taking of a house might be a $2,500 appraisal fee; but it certainly would be more than, say, a typical mortgage-finance appraisal (A complete taking? I don't see an issue of $1,500 - $2,000 for a house).

 

[djd09]

Well 1,092,081 is neither 11,865 or 1.4 million. So both the appraisers were wrong. The State produced appraisal was only off by 1,080,216.

 

[timd354]

Well 1,092,081 is neither 11,865 or 1.4 million. So both the appraisers were wrong. The State produced appraisal was only off by 1,080,216.

Does not mean that at all. It means that the jury came up with a different determination/estimate of the damages...that does not mean that the $1.4 million appraisal was wrong or not credible and it does not even necessarily mean that the $11,685 number was wrong or not credible as it is entirely possible that the jury was wrong, but a flawed as the jury system is, it is the system that is in place and is better than the judicial system that is in place in most of the rest of the world.

 

[residentialguy]

Nothing fishy about one appraisal for $11,865 and one for 1.4 million. I would have thrown them both out and got a neutral third appraisal.

They weren't for the same thing. The first one was for the property, the second one included damages.

The Turnpike Commission hired a property appraiser who set the value of the land taken from the Abrahams at $11,865. A property appraiser hired by the landowners, however, found the damages to the family to be $1.4 million.

 

[hastalavista]

When a case goes to a jury (or judge), all bets are off as far as which appraisal is "right". Either one could be right (both cannot be) or wrong, but that doesn't matter, because the decision is no longer based on the appraiser's opinion but is based on the judge/jury's opinion.
I sat in on a presentation by one of the justices who sits on the tax appeals court in D.C. He said point blank, when he is reviewing cases involving appraisals, if the appraisals are citing past court decisions (discount rates or value-points) as "data" for its valuation, he gives that component no consideration. He gives it no consideration because once it goes to a jury or judge, the final decision is no longer based on appraisal methodology but on the whims of the trier of fact.

 

[Mr Rex]

Nothing fishy about one appraisal for $11,865 and one for 1.4 million. I would have thrown them both out and got a neutral third appraisal.

and you would know that one was "right" based on what? That it agreed with one of the others? That it didn't agree with either of them?