Intended users?

[Carnivore]

here is my most recent(redacted) as directed by client:

Intended User of the Appraisal Reports:
The District Court of Justice, Mecklenburg County, NC

Client/Intended User: Attorney at Law,
XXXX LLP

Intended Use of the appraisal report is for the Equitable Distribution Trial of Mrs v Mr

 

[Couch Potato]

And, no...it's no typo.

Here in Cook County it isn't uncommon for a divorce judge to be changed three or four times. Even if a couple has been heard by one judge for two years prior to trial...once they get to court...I've been moved to three different court rooms, each with a different judge. Depends upon the caseload. The final judge may be hearing all of the issues for the very first time on the day of trial.

As for lawyers...they tend to get themselves fired off of cases they don't like. Some craft entire careers around taking a big retainer up front...then getting themselves fired by second status call.

The "typo" comment was in reference to Don's "INTENDED SUERS." My quote of him did not carry through into his quote of me. :new_smile-l:

Never a dull moment when a job involves a court case. The one thing that is certain is that at least one party will not like the report.:new_all_coholic:

 

[Richard Carlsen]

I make the court my only Intended User.

If the judge (the court) wants a 4 copies of the report, so be it. I'll see that he/she gets them. What he/she does with the copies is his/her business.

By limiting your intended user the to court only, you limit your liability because the attorneys were given the copy of the report by your client for whom you preformed the appraisal and prepared the report. Make the attorneys and the parties to the divorce your clients and you then take on additional liability for the appraisal and the data in the report. You really don't want that. By keeping the Intended User to the court, you tend to exclude the standing of any other parties in claims of liability for the report.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Ken - check your msgs.

 

[KenRossman]

Here is the order, with any confidential info blacked out...

The IL courts must be FUBAR...

I have testified in hundreds of hearings in NY, most by court appointment. I think I had maybe one or two, if even that concluded with a different judge than the one I started with.

Richards suggestion makes sense, Limiting the intended users to the client/court.

 

[Couch Potato]

I see that order as the judge asking for a report for the court to use, not the attorneys or litigants. If that is all you were given, I would limit the intended users to the judge for the court.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Question: If the appraiser identifies multiple Intended Users, is the appraiser certain that he (or, she) is aware of any "special" appraisal requirements of each and every Intended User?

 

[Couch Potato]

Question: If the appraiser identifies multiple Intended Users, is the appraiser certain that he (or, she) is aware of any "special" appraisal requirements of each and every Intended User?

The appraiser certainly should be aware of any special requirements.

 

[Carnivore]

Question: If the appraiser identifies multiple Intended Users, is the appraiser certain that he (or, she) is aware of any "special" appraisal requirements of each and every Intended User?

Lee

Fair question. My client may choose not to use the report. If so the other side never see it, does not know it exist and I am not subject to cross.

To answer your question. My client gave me instructions under the rules of evidence. That covers it.

 

[Lee Lansford]

The appraiser certainly should be aware of any special requirements.

Exactly.

Thus, when specifically identifying an Intended User, the appraiser needs to be aware of the specific needs of those so identified.

A person or entity may "use" the appraisal without being an Intended User as identified by the appraiser.