WPI 151.11 Platting

Use this instruction when the property is claimed to be adaptable to subdividing. Regarding use of the bracketed last sentence, see the Comment below.

The instruction's bracketed sentence was revised in 1997 for the second edition. Before 1997, the sentence stated that: “Value may not be based on the prices which might be realized from lots if the property were subdivided.” This former language was based on City of Medina v. Cook, 69 Wn.2d 574, 418 P.2d 1020 (1966), in which the court stated that “the determination of the use value of unimproved acreage by comparison to the value of town lots of a fully developed subdivision leads to speculation and conjecture as to its present market value.” City of Medina v. Cook, 69 Wn.2d at 578. However, the court in State v. Swarva, 86 Wn.2d 29, 31, 541 P.2d 982 (1975), stated that the rule in Medina was intended to prevent jury speculation, and that it was not error to admit appraisal testimony using the subdivision approach if doing so was supported by the evidence.

See also Chase v. City of Tacoma, 23 Wn.App. 12, 15–16, 594 P.2d 942 (1979), in which the court criticized the rule in Medina as beyond the requirements of the case and not supported by the treatise cited, Sackman, Nichols The Law on Eminent Domain, § 18.05[3] and §§ 18-39 to 18-40. According to the court, the proper principle to be applied is that admissibility of the sale price of developed parcels to show the value of an undeveloped parcel depends upon a foundational showing of (1) the adaptability of the undeveloped parcel to the use to which the developed parcel is devoted, and (2) a present market demand for the undeveloped parcels if it were so developed. Chase v. City of Tacoma, 23 Wn.App. at 17.