Chapter 10 - § 10.7 • SPECIAL USE OR VALUE PROPERTIES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 10.7 • SPECIAL USE OR VALUE PROPERTIES

In Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Griffith, an owner alleged that his placer mining claim had a certain "special value for particular uses."⁴⁶ Over the petitioner's objection, the owner was allowed to introduce evidence to show its "special value." On appeal, in finding no error in this, the supreme court held that because the property had an "uncertain market value," its value could be proven by the evidence submitted by the owner.⁴⁷

As discussed above, a similar legal analysis was performed in City of Englewood v. Denver Waste Transfer, L.L.C. in allowing the use of the land residual approach.⁴⁸ Given the special value that the property had as a vacant tract of land permitted for a waste transfer facility, for which no comparable sales existed, the court ruled that its value could be determined by a nontraditional appraisal method.⁴⁹

--------

Notes:

^[46] Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Griffith, 17 Colo. 598, 601, 31 P. 171, 172 (1892).

^[47] Id.

^[48] City of Englewood v. Denver Waste Transfer, L.L.C., 55 P.3d 191 (Colo. App. 2002).

^[49] Id. at 196 (citing the Griffith case and holding that "[w]hen the market value of property is uncertain, evidence regarding value for specific purposes is admissible in addition to evidence regarding the proposed use"). Further, in quoting from the Tenth Circuit case of United States v. Sowards, 339 F.2d 401, 402 (10th Cir. 1964), the court went on to state that when comparable sales are lacking, "resort may be had to the best available data which, even though...