Laserfiche WebLink
comparables', that,coritain 3,-8.10 SF are third:floor units with better ocean views.: <br />These two units. sold for. $948;SF:and $774 SF.:The third: comparable, which: <br />contained 2,236 SF, was also atop floor unit and sold for $1,096 SF:. (The higher <br />price per square foot: Was due to the: substantially smaller size. of the unit:) <br />The subject sold :for $748_ SF. (Although slightly below the range of :the <br />comparables_; the sale price. per SF.was reasonable considering the fact that tlie. <br />subject is: a second floor unit. 'and has =more of. a Limited: ocean. view.) <br />The:;PA' made no adjustments:to the- comparable 'sales .and did not provide a <br />specific Conclusion .'other than to scythe range: of the: comparable sales supported <br />the assessed value of the subject..A preliminary value estimate for the subject <br />property was not established.. A 15% cost of sales (COS) was -not 'deducted from. <br />thesale price of each: comparable sale. (It is noted that :the assessed value of the: <br />subject.is 86% of the purchase price.) - <br />Summary :of evidence presented byahe petitioner.: <br />The °petitioner testified that the real :estate taxes after,his purchase increased by <br />28%. The:petitionerpointed: out that :all of the property: appraiser's comparables <br />were top floor. units with'better views aiidlarger:balconid.:. At the hearing; the <br />petitioner.subiiiitted 2 tax.bills showing the assess- ed.value of. other units iri-the . . <br />subject building. Nocomparables sales were presented: by the petitioner: in orderao <br />support;an adjustment for the higher floors location: or to .establish :an estimate of <br />market value for the .subject.. <br />Rebuttal Testimony: <br />There was iib rebuttal. <br />Special magistrate's analysis and finding o.f.facts:...' <br />The comparable: sales= presented by the PA were applicable :for the analysis sand <br />valuation of the subject property. The. comparable sales, were based on the recorded <br />sale price: When .considering the difference in value for the floor locations, the <br />comparable sales support that the purchase of the:subjecfproperty was market <br />oriented. The two comparables, that are similar in size as the subject, sold for at <br />least $100,000 more than the subject. No evidence was presented to dispute that <br />Ahe sale of the -subject as: a market oriented transaction. Base on the.evidence <br />:. <br />presented; the PA did not establish a preliminary value for the subject property. No <br />COS deduction was -made to -the comparable sales. <br />Page 2 <br />2024-149 :: : _` Page 3:of 4 <br />=63- <br />