- 6 -
particular, Mr. Marx adopted background data pertaining to
Montecito-Santa Barbara area vacancy rates and fair rental value.
He also agreed with the estate's experts' analyses pertaining to
highest and best use, zoning, site and improvement, and
neighborhood description. The first two pages of each of Mr.
Marx's reports contain cover letters dated March 7, 1999, from
Mr. Marx to respondent's attorney. Both letters contain the
following disclaimer:
This Limited Summary Report is valid only if another
reviewer or entity is in possession of the [Holden I,
Holden II, and Cardenas appraisals] * * *. The
appraiser agreed on some of the factual data and issues
in these reports, and these items were used in this
Limited Summary Report as part of the analysis of the
subject. The three appraisals being reviewed, will be
relied upon as to facts concerning the site,
improvements, zoning and other descriptions. The
appraiser will not complete a zoning analysis, site &
improvement analysis or Highest and Best Use or
neighborhood descriptions. These items are found in
the appraisals reviewed by David Marx, and are assumed
to be valid. [Emphasis in the original.]
At the trial of the instant case, the estate objected to the
admission of Mr. Marx's reports, the Cardenas reports, and the
Holden I and II reports. The Court admitted, over the estate's
objection, the Holden I and II reports into evidence. The Court
conditionally admitted Mr. Marx's reports, but reserved ruling on
the admissibility of the Cardenas reports. The Court instructed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011