Originally published by David Coale.
Zive, the president of a partner in a real estate development venture, sought to testify about the value of the relevant property at various times, in the context of a dispute about the value received at a foreclosure sale. The Court affirmed his exclusion, reminding that while “an owner is qualified to testify to property value,” the testimony must “meet the same requirements as any other opinion evidence.” (quoting Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Justiss, 397 S.W.3d 150, 156, 159 (Tex. 2012)). Here, although Zive relied upon an appraiser’s report, Zive “provided no substantiation for his opinion that the fair market value of the property would have increased by approximately $2 million by the 2011 foreclosure sale date,” and thus did not meet the standard. Grapevine Diamond v. City Bank, No. 05-14-00260-CV (Nov. 10, 2015, mem. op.)
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1lxosI6
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment