This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Broker Negligence
Appraisal Report

Martha Ummel, Vern Ummel v. Last Dance Inc., Mike Little, Re/Max

Published: May 31, 2008 | Result Date: Apr. 10, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIN054088 Verdict –  Defense

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Eric J. Prosser


Defendant

David S. Bright

Eric Ginder


Experts

Plaintiff

Sara Schwarzentraub
(technical)

Edward Cramer
(technical)

Defendant

Stephen C. Fox
(technical)

Roger L. Holtsclaw
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiffs purchased a home for $1.2 million in the Aviara area of Carlsbad in July 2005. During the escrow period, the home appraised for the $1.2 million purchase price, however the appraisal contained as "comp" a similar house on the same street that sold for $105,000 less, six weeks previous to the date the plaintiffs went under contract to purchase the subject property. Additionally, another other houses on the same street sold for $110,000 less approximately five months previous and third house on the same street closed escrow for $175,000 less on the same day as the subject property's close of escrow. The plaintiffs did not receive a copy of the appraisal until several days after their close of escrow. The plaintiffs looked at 80-100 homes in the San Diego and South Orange County area, and made several purchase offers on other homes in San Diego County, prior to closing escrow on the subject property.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that they overpaid for the subject property by $150,000 and that defendants either intentionally or negligently withheld the appraisal report from them until after the close of escrow. The plaintiffs also contended that defendants had a duty to research property values in the area.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended there was no duty on their part to deliver the appraisal report to the plaintiffs prior to the close of escrow, especially in light of the fact that the appraisal report showed the subject property's appraised value as equal to the plaintiffs' purchase price. The defendants also contended that the subject property was, in fact, worth $1.2 million and that three other homes on the same street that sold for less did so because they were inferior to the subject property.

Result

Verdict for the defense on all causes of action.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 19, 2006.

Deliberation

two hours

Length

seven days


#102963

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390