|
Condemnation appraisal
The process of the appraisal is to estimate the difference in market value of the property before the condemnation, referred to herein as the Before Value, and of the property after execution of the condemnation, referred to herein as the After Value, the difference in the values representing the Value of the land acquired. the appraiser has no present or prospective interest in the property appraised and no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; the compensation received by the appraiser for the appraisal is not contingent on the analyses, opinions, or conclusions reached or reported;the appraisal was made and the appraisal report prepared in conformity with the 2016 Uniform Standard for Federal Land Acquisition (Yellowbook Standard) the analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Appraisal Foundation’s Uniform Standards for Professional Appraisal Practice, except to the extent the Yellowbook Standards required invocation of USPAP’s Jurisdictional Exception Rule, as described in Section 4.2.1.2.; under the Federal definition of Market Value already presumes that the property was exposed on the open market for a reasonable length of time, given the character of the property and its market. the appraiser has made a personal inspection of the property appraised and that the property owner, or his/her designated representative, was given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser on the property inspection
Highest and Best Use: The four tests of highest and best use are physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and highest value. From: Current Condemnation Law: Takings, Compensation and Benefits, by Alan T. Ackerman, page 252 Chapter 12. HIGHEST AND BEST USE, CHANGED USE, AND ASSEMBLAGE STANDARDS Somewhat similar to the just compensation standards is highest and best use standards. The definition of highest and best use is frequently held as the "highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future is to be considered, not necessarily as the measure of value, but to the full extent that the prospect of demand for such use affects the market value while the property is privately held."" One of the frequent issues is whether there is a possibility for different use than the existing uses to be considered. In McCandless v. U.S.," the property owners were raising cattle, but claimed that they would have had an opportunity to raise sugar cane on the property if it had not been condemned. The Court stated: The rule is well settled that in condemnation cases, the most profitable use to which the land can probably be put in the reasonably near future may be shown and considered as bearing on the market value; and the fact that such use can be made only in connection with other lands does not necessarily exclude it from consideration if the possibility of such connection is reasonably sufficient to affect market value!' Olson v. U.S.. supra, citing Boom Co. v. Patterson. 98 U.S. 403 (1878). and Clark's Ferry Bridge Co. v. Public Service Comm of Pennsylvania. 291 U.S. 227 (1934). 33. 298 U.S. 342 (1936). 34. Id. While the Takings Act assumes a Declaration of Taking, there are situations in which property may be taken without condemnation. Under such circumstances, where the government has the power of eminent domain and seizes property, an owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.S. Section 1346(a)(2) and 1491, to recover just compensation. In Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia v. United States," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a property owned by the County, which the County had previously acquired in order to protect the Manassas Battlefield, should be valued premised upon its highest and best use. Citing Olson, the Court of Appeals set forth the standard as the amount commanded in the open market at the time of the taking in light of the highest and most profitable use, including what it may have been devoted to in the near future. The Court of Appeals panel relied upon McCandless v. United State?' in holding "the rule is well settled that in condemnation cases, the most profitable use to which the property can probably be put in the reasonably near future may be shown and considered as bearing upon the market value."42 The Prince William panel also discussed how the property should be considered in combination with other parcels in the determination of the highest and best use. In citing Powelson," the panel held it would allow a combination to be considered as the highest and most profitable use so long as there is a reasonable probability that the parcels would have been combined in the reasonably near future."44 39. 276 F.3d 1359 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 40. Id. at 1364. 41. 80 L. Ed. 1205 (1936). 42. 298 U.S. at 345-46. 43. 319 U.S. 266 at 275-76; 87 L Ed. 1390 Market Value: In all assignments for federal acquisitions under these Standards, the type of opinion to be developed is market value. It is imperative that the appraiser utilize the correct definition of market value. In all federal acquisitions except leasehold acquisitions, appraisers must use the following federal definition of market value:(11) Definition of Market Value Market value is the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of value, after a reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property |