Property's use and classification may be considered in property valuation. (Cases in Brief).
A property's use and classification may be considered in its valuation, according to according to
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. a decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
In 1975, Michael Weed purchased an old house on three acres of land along a branch of a river for $1,000. The house, which Weed restored and eventually made his home, is serviced by a well and septic system. Access to the property is by permanent easement easement, in law, the right to use the land of another for a specified purpose, as distinguished from the right to possess that land. If the easement benefits the holder personally and is not associated with any land he owns, it is an easement in gross (e.g. . In 1983, the local township vacated a township road that provided access to the property. In exchange for a permanent easement over neighboring land, Weed agreed not to sue the township for any loss of value to his property resulting from vacation of the road. Weed currently accesses his property by a bridge that he built over the river. For tax purposes, two of Weed's acres are classified agricultural and one acre, the home site, is classified agricultural homestead. The assessor valued the agricultural acres at $450 each, which Weed did not contest. He did, however, contest the $8,000 valuation of the agricultural homestead land. The tax court upheld the valuation relying heavily on the sales comparison approach The sales comparison approach (SCA) is one of the three major groupings of valuation methods, called the three approaches to value, commonly used in real estate appraisal. . Weed appealed.
On appeal, Weed argued that the tax court erred by considering use and classification of the subject property to estimate its value. The court said that Weed ignored the legislative mandate that for tax purposes agricultural property and agricultural homestead property are to be classified and valued separately and that the land and dwelling of an agricultural homestead are to be valued separately. "Not only does relator The individual in whose name a legal action is brought by a state; the individual who relates the facts on which an action is based.
The relator is the individual upon whose complaint certain writs are issued. [Weed] ignore the legislative mandate," the court said, "he ignores the reality that agricultural homestead land has greater value than bare agricultural land." The tax court decision was affirmed.
Weed v. County of Filmore
Supreme Court of Minnesota
July 26, 2001