- 23 -
because of its brevity. We disagree. The brevity of the Dilmore
report was intentional. The report was prepared in response to a
request by an attorney representing Rivers in the estate
proceedings. The purpose underlying the request was simply to
aid Rivers in the performance of her obligations as special
administratrix ad colligendum. Dilmore testified that, in his
professional opinion, the report was appropriate for its intended
purpose and consistent with guidelines established by the
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (AIREA). Dilmore
further testified that he would not have agreed to prepare a
letter report had he known that the report was to be used in a
trial. Instead, Dilmore further testified, he would have
prepared a formal report or none at all.
Although their conclusions differ considerably, there is
little contrast in the substance of the reports advanced by
either party. The lengthier reports contain collateral
information that, while perhaps helpful and informative to
clients, is of little value to a fact finder. We do not think
that the presence or absence of this collateral information
should be considered as either benefiting or hindering
respondent's reliance upon such documents in reaching her
determinations. We therefore accept the Dilmore report, as we
accept each of the remaining three, cognizant of its original
purpose.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011