In 2020, Valrus experts were determined to re-evaluate the cost of one of the TOP 10 capital markets of the new format – Danilovsky market. Ginza Project bought this market from the Moscow City Hall for 425 million with a commitment to invest another 800 million rubles in its reconstruction. From 2015 to 2017, comprehensive repair work was carried out on the territory of the market without stopping trading activities. The total area of work in the market and surrounding areas amounted to more than 12,000 sq. m. The appearance of the building built in 1986 has been preserved. The very concept of the market was changed, turning Danilovsky from a Soviet food trading place into a "secular" market, making an analogue of San Miguel in Madrid or La Boqueria in Barcelona. According to Ginza Project, the repair of Danilovsky cost 910 million rubles.
Now in the center of the market there is an island with fish and seafood, from which the rays radiate shopping areas with meat, cheese, dairy products, as well as small gastronomic stalls. There are also 28 bistros. Jamie Oliver's first cooking school in Russia has been opened in the attic.
The peculiarity of the Danilovsky market in calculating its market value is that there are few such "conceptual" markets in Moscow and it can be said that the market for such objects is undeveloped, which excludes the use of a comparative approach in valuation. As for the income approach, in addition to the fact that it is necessary to take into consideration the very concept of the market, it is necessary to understand that the amount of rental rates for a retail outlet depends on the location and length of the layout of the trading place, the type of products sold, the level of competition in the market within this category of goods, and varies in a fairly wide range. In this case, to take the rental rates for commercial premises as analogues and apply the corrections from the "well–known source" is to show a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the object being valuated.
It can be said that the Danilovsky market, as a commercial facility, is intended for business, which means that its value should be determined based on information about the operating activities of this business, that is, only actual data on rental rates for retail outlets and food court premises can be used to determine the value. In response to the request of the expert of LLC Kartsev Consulting Company VALRUS, information was received on the rental rates and current operating expenses in force at the valuation date, which formed the basis for calculating the cost and allowed to obtain correct and reliable results, which were accepted by the court.
It should be noted that the judicial evaluation examination determined by the experts of the company "Valrus" was the third in the course of the case. The court could not accept the previous two as reliable due to the large difference in the final results. In this regard, in addition to calculating the value of the real estate object in his conclusion, the expert analyzed the final values of previous examinations and the results of determining the cadastral value in the amount of the market value as of 01.01.2016. This analysis helped the court to understand the level of comparability of the obtained market value results within the framework of some expert opinions and the reasons for deviations in comparison with another, which made it possible to make a final decision by making the above explanations in the reasoning part of the decision on the case.
The First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction requires that such an analysis of the reasons for the discrepancy between the conclusions and the conclusions of the primary examination (if any) be present in the conclusion of the re-examination without fail, referring to the "Methodological recommendations for the production of forensic examinations in state forensic institutions of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation." However, it should be understood that this is independent work, often more time-consuming than checking the valuation report. If the court makes this requirement, then it should be formulated as a separate question in the decision on the appointment of an examination, and not just implied. And as a independent type of work, the study of the primary examination (and sometimes additional and repeated) should be paid additionally, and the costs should be distributed. In particular, according to the regulations of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, if any issues are raised by the court on its own initiative, then their payment may be assigned to the federal budget, therefore, the formalization of these requirements during the trial is an important point.
Nevertheless, as already mentioned, such a task was completed within the framework of the re-forensic valuation examination, because it was obvious from experience that additional explanations may be required for the court to make a decision in connection with significant deviations in values within the framework of various examinations.
Following the consideration of the case, the court decided to establish the cadastral value of the disputed real estate, buildings and land market based on the results of the forensic examination of the company Valrus. The decision of the Moscow City Court was upheld by the court of appeal.
Especially for valuers and forensic experts, we note that in the judgment rendered in the case, the court indicated that:
This reservation is important because authorities often try to prove that when allocating a capital construction object, the cost of not the entire plot should be deducted from the cost of a single real estate object, but only under construction, which of course is not true. The entire plot that participates in the formation of income and the value of a single real estate object should be calculated, including taking into consideration parking lots, passageways, driveways and landscaping elements.Since the object of the study is a food market with a food hall area, for its high-quality functioning it is necessary to have parking and an neighboring territory, which allows the object to generate income. Accordingly, the expert reasonably took into account the land plot in full area, and not some part of it. In addition, the expert determined both the cost of the capital construction facility and the land plot. In effect of paragraph 1.6 of the Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation dated May 12, 2017 No.226, the cost of the capital construction object and the land plot (taking into account the scope of rights) must correspond to the cost of a single real estate object.