Laserfiche WebLink
E. Mako, and presented at trial by Mr. Patchin. Considering all <br />three approaches to value but relying most on the sales <br />comparison approach, Mr. Patchin testified that the January 2, <br />1993 value of the property was $260,000. <br />At trial, before we heard the valuation testimony, <br />Respondent moved to exclude Mr. McComb's written and oral <br />testimony on the basis that the written reports were not <br />furnished to Respondent before trial as required by Minn. Stat. § <br />278.05, subd. 6. Respondent argues that subd. 6 requires the <br />owners of income-producing property to provide the County with <br />all information that they intend to use at trial, not just income <br />and expense figures. We disagree. We understand § 278.05, <br />subd. 6 to require property owners to give data to the County so <br />that the County may prepare a review appraisal of the property. <br />Mr. McComb's reports and analysis do not include appraisal data. <br />Mr. McComb is not an appraiser and did not testify to the value <br />of the subject property. Rather, Mr. McComb provided the Court <br />with information regarding the retail climate in Elk River which <br />could be affecting the income-producing capabilities of the <br />property. We conclude that if a County chooses not to utilize <br />formal discovery, the County is not entitled to exclude non- <br />appraisal expert testimony on the basis that the testimony was <br />not disclosed to the County prior to trial. <br />Since Petitioner chose not to present an expert appraisal <br />but chose instead to adapt Mr. Patchin's income methodology, we <br />review Mr. Patchin's appraisal first. Mr. Patchin considered all <br />6 <br />