By: dmc-admin//February 25, 2002//
By: dmc-admin//February 25, 2002//
This is because the appraiser had researched land sales that were purchased for quarrying purposes by known quarry owners, the comparable properties contained similar stone deposits, were located in the same county and were adjacent to existing or old quarries.
“Whether or not borings were a necessary component to determine comparability goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence; it is generally a question for the trier of fact to determine whether the proposed factor underlying the opinion of the expert as to the fair market value, here the borings, is one which would have reasonably been considered by a willing buyer and a willing seller. [citation] Rademann was given ample opportunity to challenge the comparability of these fourteen sales with his property. The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it found the sales comparable and admitted evidence of market sales.”
And because there was adequate evidence of comparable sales, the trial court properly excluded income evidence as overly speculative.
Judgment affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
DISSENTING OPINION: Brown, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part. I disagree that evidence of comparable sales was properly admitted into evidence in this case.
Dist II, Fond du Lac County, English, J., Snyder, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Russel J. Reff, Oshkosh; Benjamin Southwick, Richland Center
For Respondent: Sandra L. Tarver, Madison