1/10/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ,JAS 1 0 89 BOOK 75 Er.EE 5S0 Parcel No. 162 - Richard and Arlyne Zorc At the hearing on this parcel, the Judge awarded $50,607.00 in the Order of Taking. The Zorcs are requesting an additional $13,335.30 as a full settlement. This amount is based on the cost to cure their loss of parking spaces. The County's position at the hearing on the Order of Taking was that severance damages 'plus the value of the land and improvements taken, would amount to $42,500.00 based on the estimates of our appraiser. At the hearing, the Judge appears to have taken the cost of cure approach, i .e. , the cost of replacing the parking approach favored by the Zorcs. The award at the Order of Taking hearing was very close to our appraiser's estimate of $50,420.00 based on this approach of replacing the parking. We could argue that the severance damage approach was a better one to determine the Zorcs' losses, however it appears that the Judge has already approved of the approach favored by the Zorcs. The additional compensation they are requesting would appear reasonable based on the fact that our appraisals were done six months prior to the Order of Taking and would need to be updated to the actual taking date. Also, there is a difference between the cost of paving and drainage estimated by our appraiser and the actual cost estimate submitted by the contractor. Our appraiser has also indicated that additional engineering, site design work, etc. would need to be performed and were not included in his calculations. In view of the fact that the Court has apparently looked with favor on the cost of cure approach recommended by the Zorcs rather than the severance damage approach put forward by the County; in view of the reasonableness of the. cost estimates; and in view of the additional expense to the County for updating our own appraisals, paying for the appraisals of the Zorcs, paying for the expert witness fees of both our appraisers and theirs, and the additional expense of a jury trial on these issues (increasing the Zorcs' attorney's fees at the rate of $200.00 an hour which would have to be paid for by the County), and; in view of the unlikelihood of -arriving at a final award any better than what is proposed in settlement, we should -consider settling for the additional $13,335.35 requested by the Zorcs, plus appraisal fee in the amount of $440.00, plus some reasonable attorney's fee. Mr. O'Haire-has requested a $9,500.00 attorney's fee but has not submitted time sheets which would justify or warrant this fee. Parcel No. 141 - Frank Zorc At the hearing on the quick take, the Judge entered an Order of Taking awarding $9,762.64 to Mr. Zorc. Mr. Zorc will settle for the amount already paid. Mr. Zorc's attorney, Eugene O'Neill, has requested an attorney's fee in the amount of $3,500.00. Mr. O'Neill has worked extensively on this case as I can verify from countless hours of correspondence and work on this case that I have spent with him in trying to arrive at settlement. I believe that this attorney's fee is reasonable. ANALYSIS Parcel No. 130 (Barnes), Parcel Nos. 139 and 140 (R. and A. Zorc), and Parcel No. 141 (F. Zorc) all involve the issue of a maintenance map. The County's only argument in these cases is that we maintained a grass area along old 12th Street and, thus, own that property. There was no maintenance map filed on these parcels until after the eminent domain suits were filed. In order for title to the 48