Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />present, the property would have a fair market value of $180,000 <br />and would only be viable as agricultural 1 I d. On cross- <br />examination, the expert conceded that his calculations assessed the <br />diminution in property value as a whole since the time that <br />homeowners first acquired the land and did not distinguish <br />between loss in value prior to December 1, 1997, and loss in value <br />after that date. <br />Basin argues the trial court erred in r~lying on this testimony <br />because the expert witness was required to determine the fair <br />market value of the property before the second incidence of <br />subsidence and the fair market value after the second incidence, <br />which he admittedly did not do. We do not agree. <br />In its December 19, 2002 judgment, the trial court, <br />incorporating the calculations of homeowners' expert witness, <br />determined the diminution in the value of homeowners' property <br />according to a measure of damages "as specified by the Colorado <br />Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, and regulations adopted <br />pursuant to this Act." That statute contains the following relevant <br />provision: <br />14 <br />