04/29/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sale 4 had a much larger building envelope of 0.92 acres and was adjusted downward by $287,559 or $19 SF. (No explanation for the site size adjustment was provided.) Sales 1 and 2 had similar frontage along the ocean as the subject. Sale 3 had 87 FF and was adjusted upward at $20,000 per front foot or $260,000. Sale 4 had 121 front feet and was adjusted downward by $420,000. The comparables were adjusted for construction quality at $100 SF of living area. Sale 1 was not adjusted. Sale 2 was considered very good. quality construction and was adjusted downward by $301,200. Sale 3 was considered similar in quality and received no adjustment. Sale 4 was considered to be very good quality construction and was adjusted downward by $414,300. The comparable sales were adjusted for effective age. The subject was assigned an effective age of 10 years. (It is noted that this was inconsistent with the PRC which showed the subject had an effective age of 23 years. The comparables were adjusted based on the use of a 10 year effect age for the subject.) This resulted in an upward adjustment to Sale 1 of $1,260,000. No adjustment was applied to Sale 2. An upward adjustment was applied to Sale 3 of $450,800 and an upward adjustment to Sale 4 of $1,000,000. The adjustment was based on 2% of the sale price of the comparable for a difference of five years. or greater. The comparables were adjusted for the difference in bathrooms at $50,000 per bathroom. The comparables were adjusted at $300 SF for the difference in living area. This resulted in an upward adjustment to Sale 1 of $202,500, Sale 2 of $419,100, a downward adjustment to Sale 3 of $151,200 and an upward adjustment to Sale 4 of $79,800. After adjustments, including the cost of sale adjustment, (which was deducted from the recorded sale price not the adjusted sale price) the comparables indicated a range from $4,196,936 to a high of $4,373,253 and.$868 SF to $1,452 SF. The weighted average of the 4 sales was reported at $4,257,535 and at $1,158 SF. The PA testified that the conclusion of just value was based on a weighted average with most weight given to Sale 1 (50%), Sale 2 (25%), Sale 3 (15%) and Sale 4 (10%). This supported the PA's estimate of just value. Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner requested a market (just) value for the property at $3,525,000. The petitioner testified that the house was built in 1968 and (per the PRC) shows an effective year built of 2000, which would indicate an effective age of 24 years. Page 3 2024-162 Page 4 of 8 -77-