I was very much wondering where that valuation came from, and this was the only rational explanation I could come up with. What causes me to scratch my head here is that the trespasser isn't the one causing that drop in valuation. It's the market perception that such trespassing is possible.
For example, if there was never a trespass on this property, but someone, somewhere else brought a similar case before the court and got the same ruling from a judge, I would expect the impact on the valuation of the property would be impacted in the same way.
It also seems a bit troublesome that the perceived valuation is driven by the owner's efforts to misrepresent the property. I could argue they should be charged with theft of $7.75 million, and are effectively suing people for reclaiming the stolen goods.
For example, if there was never a trespass on this property, but someone, somewhere else brought a similar case before the court and got the same ruling from a judge, I would expect the impact on the valuation of the property would be impacted in the same way.
It also seems a bit troublesome that the perceived valuation is driven by the owner's efforts to misrepresent the property. I could argue they should be charged with theft of $7.75 million, and are effectively suing people for reclaiming the stolen goods.