Generally, "[c]ompensation for land taken for public use is determined by fair market value of the property on the date of taking * * *." Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 53, 67 O.O.2d 262, 264, 313 N.E.2d 413, 415. In defining fair market value, this court explained:
The term "fair market value" is usually defined as that price which would be agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing buyer in a voluntary sale on the open market. Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 53, 67 O.O.2d 262, 264-265, 313 N.E.2d 413, 415-416. In an appropriation case, the landowners are entitled to receive not only the value of the appropriated land, but also compensation for any damage to their remaining property (the residue) as a result of the take.
There is little question that in an appropriate case the probability of future zoning modification is a factor to be considered by the trier of fact in considering the question of the market value of the real property at issue. Perhaps the court in Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 55, 67 Ohio O. 2d 262, 266, 313 N.E.2d 413, 418 (1973), best explained the underlying rationale when it stated: "* * * If, however, such a purchaser would be presently willing to pay more than an amount justified by the uses permitted under existing zoning because of a general belief that there is a probability of a change in zoning, to permit a more valuable use within the reasonably foreseeable future, such evidence is admissible because it does reflect a factor in the present fair market value under existing zoning."
{ΒΆ42} "Fair market value" otherwise known as "retail value" is defined as that price which would be agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing buyer in a voluntary sale on the open market. Wray v. Stvartak, 121 Ohio App.3d 462, 471, 700 N.E.2d 347 (1997); Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co, 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 54, 313 N.E.2d 413 (1973).
Market value is determined by the most valuable and best uses to which the property could reasonably, practically, and lawfully be adapted which is referred to as `the highest and best use.'" Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 54 (citations omitted). {ΒΆ 58} "Damage to the residue is measured by the difference between the pre-and postappropriation fair market value of the property that remains after the taking."
Market value is determined by the most valuable and best uses to which' the property could reasonably, practically, and lawfully be adapted which is referred to as 'the highest and best use.'" Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 54. {ΒΆ 53} "In calculating fair market value of real property, real estate appraisers employ three recognized methods of appraisal: (1) cost of reproducing the property, less depreciation; (2) market data approach utilizing recent sales of comparable property; and (3) the income or economic approach based upon the capitalization of net income."
{ΒΆ 15} The term "fair market value" is usually defined as that price which would be agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing buyer in a voluntary sale on the open market. Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 53, 67 O.O.2d 262, 313 N.E.2d 413. In determining the fair market value of the subject property before and after the appropriation, "`every element that can fairly enter into the question of value, and which an ordinarily prudent business man would consider before forming judgment in making a purchase, should be considered.'"
* * * The term `fair market value' is usually defined as that price which would be agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing buyer in a voluntary sale on the open market." Wray v. Stvartak (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 462, 471, citing Englewood . Wagoner (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 324, 326 and Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 53. In an appropriation case, the landowner is entitled to receive not just the value of the appropriated land, but also compensation for damage to the remaining property (the residue) as a result of the take.
In light of the following propositions of law, we must define a number of key terms. For instance, "fair market value" otherwise known as "retail value" is defined as that price which would be agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing buyer in a voluntary sale on the open market. Wray v. Stvartak (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 462, 471; Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 38 Ohio App.2d 49, 54; Huntington Nat. Bank v. Elkins (Apr. 18, 1989), Franklin App. No. 88AP-597, unreported, 1989 WL 36592, at 4. In comparison, "wholesale value" is:
Smith v. Walter (Mar. 9, 1987), Montgomery App. No. 10111, unreported; 38 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1982) 233, Eminent Domain, Section 160. The term "fair market value" is usually defined as that price which would be agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing buyer in a voluntary sale on the open market. Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co. (1973), 39 Ohio App.2d 49, 53, 67 O.O. 2d 262, 264-265, 313 N.E.2d 413, 416. In the event of a partial appropriation, the landowner is entitled to receive not only the value of the appropriated land, but also compensation for any damage to the landowner's remaining property (the residue) as a result of the take.