- 25 -
Unfortunately, in many instances Atkinson stated that an element
of a comparable property was of a lesser quality than the
property being valued and then did not adjust for that lesser
quality or adjusted downward. In at least one instance, the mere
correction of the directions of the adjustments in Atkinson’s
matrix so that they conformed to Atkinson’s textual descriptions
resulted in increasing the resulting value by about 50 percent.
Also, in some instances, the textual descriptions of properties
in Atkinson’s written report did not match the properties listed
in the accompanying matrix. It was as though Atkinson had
revised parts of a draft of his report but inadvertently kept
parts of former drafts that no longer fit the revised draft.
Another matter that gives us concern about how carefully
Atkinson reads the expert witness reports that he issues relates
to the following statement which appears in each of his
valuations of the Subject Properties. “This appraisal meets the
certification requirements of the California Civil Code Section
1922.14 controlling persons preparing certified appraisals of
real property.” These valuations are dated from May 10, 1995
(Lafayette Property), to February 11, 1998 (Parker Property). At
trial, Atkinson was confronted by the fact that the cited
California Code provision had been repealed in 1990, the repeal
taking effect no later than January 1, 1992. Atkinson
acknowledged the repeal. When asked why his expert witness report
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011