When Your Appraisal Gets Tossed (Or Almost Does): Lessons from a Motion in Limine
If you’re an appraiser doing retrospective work—especially for divorce or estate cases—this one’s worth your time. A Motion in Limine was filed in court which tried to toss out my appraisal. Here’s the full story, and why it’s a case study in how to handle extraordinary assumptions, retrospective valuations, and last-minute legal curveballs.
The Background
I originally completed an appraisal on this property back in 2023. Later, the attorney contacted me and asked if I could provide a retrospective value as of a date in 2019, in case they wanted to argue for the date of separation as the value benchmark. I also completed a third appraisal with a current effective date to show today’s market value.
So going into trial, I had three appraisals in hand:
- A 2025 current market value
- A 2023 value based on my original inspection
- A retrospective 2019 value, using an extraordinary assumption that the condition I observed in 2023 was similar to what it was in 2019
Each report was clearly labeled, USPAP-compliant, and included the appropriate commentary about assumptions and limitations.
Then Came the Motion in Limine
The day before trial, the opposing counsel filed a Motion in Limine to exclude my 2019 retrospective appraisal. Their claim? That the extraordinary assumption wasn’t reliable, lacked supporting data, and didn’t meet Florida’s Daubert standard for expert testimony.
They argued I didn’t provide photos or maintenance records from 2019 (because apparently I should’ve been documenting this house like a time traveler). They tried to paint the assumption as speculative and the entire appraisal as inadmissible.
The Truth? The Appraisal Was Solid
I was prepared to testify via Zoom and explain everything—the assumptions, the methodology, and how I arrived at the 2019 value.
But I didn’t have to.
The case settled before I ever spoke. And the twist? The opposing party—the same folks trying to discredit the report—agreed with my 2019 valuation and used it in the settlement.
Lessons for Appraisers Doing Court Work
This case is a reminder of a few things:
- Extraordinary assumptions are not just allowed—they’re expected in retrospective work. Just disclose them clearly, explain their impact, and make sure they’re reasonable.
- You don’t need a DeLorean. Supporting documentation helps, but courts understand the realities of retroactive valuation.
- Don’t let a legal motion rattle you. Attorneys file these all the time—it doesn’t mean your work is bad.
- Have a clear conversation with your attorney-client. Make sure they understand the strength of your report so they can defend it confidently.
Final Thought
A well-written, well-supported appraisal speaks for itself. Even when it’s being challenged, if your work is solid, it will often carry the day—sometimes without you needing to say a word. This is the kind of courtroom win we don’t always get to celebrate… but it’s one that matters.
