Verdict on Lehman Bros vs. Passarelli & Potts

[Ken B]

Why is it you cant see the flaw in what the court did. "The court used value reported by an expert witness AS OF A LATER DATE TO CALCULATE DAMAGES" !!!

Why do you keep bringing this unreasonable logic into your posts. It was NOT an appreciating market was it? What basis does this have for anything?

Personal issues aside Mr Brown .. had this been you .. you would be arguing so hard that you are only responsible for valuation as of the effective date of your report that it would make our head spin.
I personally believe the expert witness date of valuation to be in error ... and I have read what the court said ... it still does not change my mind as to any reasonable human being would conclude the valuation date of the expert was in error. Even the court recognized the declining market.
My very strong suspicion is that the court did not have any analysis by the expert as to value as of the effective date and thusly they were stuck with the Feb 05 valuation. That is a shame but it appears that may well be what has happened.

Tenacity is a wonderful thing when you are correct. Not so much when you are not.

Attached is a quick and dirty graph of price trends in the Miami market as reported by Case-Schiller. The court doc indicates the appraisals in question were completed in 2003-2004 timeframe. The value date for establishing damages was 2/05. Yes, PE, we were in an appreciating market.

Please refer us to page and paragraph which you believe indicates the court determined we were in a declining market.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

But this wasn't an asteroid. The finder of fact determined it was negligence.

And my suspicion is that is very key to the whole issue of damages together with the fact that the court didnt have any other number to base damages on .. with the exception of the Feb 2005 date of valuation by the expert.
I also do find it interesting that even though the appraiser was found negligent and damages were awarded .. they were zeroed out by payments of others but honestly I dont understand the exact legal issues and how it relates specifically and monetarily among the liable parties.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Tenacity is a wonderful thing when you are correct. Not so much when you are not.

Attached is a quick and dirty graph of price trends in the Miami market as reported by Case-Schiller. The court doc indicates the appraisals in question were completed in 2003-2004 timeframe. The value date for establishing damages was 2/05. Yes, PE, we were in an appreciating market.

Please refer us to page and paragraph which you believe indicates the court determined we were in a declining market.

Well I am tenacious if nothing else .. and I do stand corrected.
I still do not understand the different dates of valuation measurement. I remain convinced if there were negligence it occurred on the effective date of valuation and the measurement should have been from that date.
And it appears, Mr Brown, that these particular units were suffering a high degree of market decline (tongue in cheek) .. perhaps they were well ahead of the typical market curve.

 

[Ken B]

Well I am tenacious if nothing else .. and I do stand corrected.
I still do not understand the different dates of valuation measurement. I remain convinced if there were negligence it occurred on the effective date of valuation and the measurement should have been from that date.
And it appears, Mr Brown, that these particular units were suffering a high degree of market decline (tongue in cheek) .. perhaps they were well ahead of the typical market curve.

Perhaps that was it. I'm out.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

No, Mike--there was no multi-purpose addendum. Any other straws you like to grasp at?

forgot this part..........


As it was done on a Fannie Form, did your addendum cite the Intended Use was for a FRT? or further define "mortgage lending" ??


"

B. The Passarelli Defendants’ Motion​

The jury also returned a verdict against the Passarelli Defendants on both the negligence
and negligent misrepresentation claims.

The Passarelli Defendants argue that they clearly expressed their intention to limit their liability to any third-party users of the appraisal reports
through language in the reports that prohibited anyone but the intended user to rely on them.

The appraisal reports indicated that the intended user was Interlachen Residential Mortgage Company, LLC only. Such contractual clauses that clearly limit liability are valid, and they argue, the Court should give effect to the plain meaning of the clause, finding that they owed no
duty to Plaintiff.

The Court rejects this argument and concludes that there was substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that the Passarelli Defendants knew that a lender would rely on the appraisals for mortgage-lending purposes. Although the appraisal reports did not identify Plaintiff as the
“intended user,” the appraisals clearly stated that they were for “mortgage-lending purposes,” and Passarelli testified that he knew the appraisals would be used for mortgage financing.

​

Interfirst Federal Savings Bank v. Burke, 672 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), is distinguishable because the plaintiff in that case was expressly listed as a permitted user of the report.

Case 8:06-cv-02030-SCB-MSS Document 392 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 4 of 15​

5​

Inversiones Inmobiliarias de Orlando Sociedad Anomina v. Barnett Bank of Central Fla., 584
So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), is distinguishable because it involved a breach of fiduciary duty
claim, not a negligence claim.

Accordingly, upon consideration of the entirety of the evidence presented at trial, the Passarelli Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s response, and the arguments presented by counsel during the February 14th hearing, the Court concludes there was substantial
evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The Passarelli Defendants’ renewed motion under Rule 50 (Doc. No. 354) is DENIED.​

 

[Joyce Potts]

forgot this part..........


As it was done on a Fannie Form, did your addendum cite the Intended Use was for a FRT? or further define "mortgage lending" ??


"

B. The Passarelli Defendants’ Motion
The jury also returned a verdict against the Passarelli Defendants on both the negligence​

and negligent misrepresentation claims.​

The Passarelli Defendants argue that they clearly expressed their intention to limit their liability to any third-party users of the appraisal reports
through language in the reports that prohibited anyone but the intended user to rely on them. ​

The appraisal reports indicated that the intended user was Interlachen Residential Mortgage Company, LLC only. Such contractual clauses that clearly limit liability are valid, and they argue, the Court should give effect to the plain meaning of the clause, finding that they owed no
duty to Plaintiff. ​

The Court rejects this argument and concludes that there was substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that the Passarelli Defendants knew that a lender would rely on the appraisals for mortgage-lending purposes. Although the appraisal reports did not identify Plaintiff as the
“intended user,” the appraisals clearly stated that they were for “mortgage-lending purposes,” and Passarelli testified that he knew the appraisals would be used for mortgage financing.​

Interfirst Federal Savings Bank v. Burke, 672 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), is distinguishable because the plaintiff in that case was expressly listed as a permitted user of the report. ​

Case 8:06-cv-02030-SCB-MSS Document 392 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 4 of 15​

5

Inversiones Inmobiliarias de Orlando Sociedad Anomina v. Barnett Bank of Central Fla., 584​

So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), is distinguishable because it involved a breach of fiduciary duty
claim, not a negligence claim. ​

Accordingly, upon consideration of the entirety of the evidence presented at trial, the Passarelli Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s response, and the arguments presented by counsel during the February 14th hearing, the Court concludes there was substantial
evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The Passarelli Defendants’ renewed motion under Rule 50 (Doc. No. 354) is DENIED.​

​

ZERO VERDICT, Mike.

Why? Because you can't go into court and claim the appraiser over valued the properties and bring in a slew of expert witnesses, then try and recover over an above what was already recovered. Essentially, what the court is saying is, you can't collect twice.

So what was this really all about?

​

 

[Mike Kennedy]

This: Scope of Work/Fannie Form/Intended Use: substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that the Passarelli Defendants knew that a lender would rely on the appraisals for mortgage-lending purposes. Although the appraisal reports did not identify Plaintiff as the

“intended user,” the appraisals clearly stated that they were for “mortgage-lending purposes,” and Passarelli testified that he knew the appraisals would be used for mortgage financing.

 

[rcsone]

...can surgeon limit his liability by offering to refund or ignore charges by "limited by equal to fee...".......no......and neither can we, but I thought about it earlier....maybe I can refind the citation and list.....will try later........reminds me of a story------two fellow were walking and visiting. One said to the other, "I understand you had a racehorse". And the response was, "yes I did". The first fellow then said, "I heard you had a raffle on the horse, but it died before the drawing". The other responded, "Right, I sold five hundred chances at $50".
Then it was asked, "What happened after the horse died......?". And the retort was, "Well, the one that won complained and I gave him back his money".......

That option is not available on appraisals.....best to all.......rs

 

[Smokey Bear]

Don't most home inspectors limit damages to their fee? If they can, why can't we?

 

[Mr Rex]

Don't most home inspectors limit damages to their fee? If they can, why can't we?

Some HI E&O policies require that comment be in their Inspectors contracts with their clients. I asked my attorney about it, he laughed and said "Well good luck with that." He did say to leave it in there, it might fool some poor ignorant smuck, but from a legal standpoint it was basically toilet paper.