Minor Errors in Valuation of Property
National Legal Research Group, Inc.)
The appellate court is not required to remand the case for correction of every small valuation error:
Contrary to Wife’s argument, however, the trial court did not err in valuing the proceeds. It is true that the evidence shows that the cash proceeds from the sale of the West Maple property were $114,578.43 and the trial court valued them at $114,785.66 or $114,641.81. This error, however, is de minimis because the trial court’s valuation of the cash proceeds is different from the value provided by the evidence by only about $200. If, in determining the value of property, the trial court’s valuation is within the range of evidence, the valuation is not erroneous.
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 109 S.W.3d 258, 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
Likewise, minor errors do not necessarily mean that the testimony of an expert witness is not credible. In Elliott v. Elliott, 2003 WL 1889483 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003), the wife’s expert admitted upon cross-examination no less than 15 errors in his valuation. But all of the errors were very small in magnitude. A trial court decision accepting the expert’s valuation was affirmed:
Here, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in deciding to believe Bessie’s expert, Dawes, even though he admitted on cross-examination that he had made some mistakes in his valuation. Dawes testified that the mistakes that Beryl’s counsel pointed out to him during cross-examination were just "typos" and did not change his opinion about the value of Beryl’s business. Thus, we do not find that the court acted unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable in believing Dawes’s valuation of Beryl’s business. Accordingly, we overrule Beryl’s first assignment of error.
Id. at *3. When cross-examining an expert, a few major errors will carry more weight than a larger number of small errors.
Information provided by:
National Legal Research Group, Inc.
Recommend Page | Print Page