- 28 -
Garrison and Mr. Davis had had a collusive relationship since the
1960's, (3) Mr. Davis controlled Mr. Garrison, and (4) Mr.
Garrison lied to respondent's agents and at the trial of this
case. Respondent also points to testimony in the record that Mr.
Garrison had a reputation for appraisals on the high side.
1. Mr. Garrison
On the basis of the record and our opportunity to observe
Mr. Garrison at trial, we found him credible. Mr. Garrison was a
confident World War II veteran, and no one told him what to do or
what to think.
Mr. Garrison was not financially dependent on Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis did not suggest values for properties he needed
appraised. Respondent has failed to establish a conspiracy or
any collusive relationship between Mr. Garrison and Mr. Davis.
Assuming arguendo that his appraisals were on the high side,
Mr. Garrison believed his opinions were correct on the basis of
the property's highest and best use. Mr. Davis believed that Mr.
Garrison was a qualified and experienced appraiser and had no
reason to doubt the values determined by Mr. Garrison. We fail
to see how Mr. Garrison's alleged reputation establishes fraud on
the part of Mr. Davis.
2. Valuation
Respondent, on brief, repeatedly states that "this is not a
valuation case". We agree. The parties, however, devote much of
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011