Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Real Estate Expert Witness

  • Real Estate Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Undue Hardship

    Real Estate Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Undue Hardship

    On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff Pharilyn Chhang filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants West Coast and Sergio Madrigal, alleging causes of action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wrongful eviction; invasion of private right to occupancy; and breach of duty. Plaintiff claimed that she is a disabled person who requires her emotional support animal, Onyx, to reside with her.

    Defendants intended to call Robert S. Griswold to testify as an expert witness “regarding the standard of care for a property owner/manager as it relates to accommodation requests, insurance issues and costs, ineligible risks and liability exposure and related issues.” However, Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Griswold.

    Plaintiff also filed a motion to preclude Defendants’ expert witness Kevin J. Valine.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Robert Stephen Griswold is a recognized expert on management of all types of residential real estate. He has actively managed over 70,000 residential units and several million square feet of commercial, industrial, self-storage, and retail properties nationally in the last 40+ years.

    He is a 3-time graduate of the distinguished Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California with a BS (’81), MBA (’86), and MSBA (2nd Masters) (’88) in real estate and related disciplines.

    Get the full story on challenges to Robert Griswold’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Insurance Expert Witness

    Kevin J. Valine has more than 45 years of experience in the field of property/casualty insurance and risk management.

    He has been licensed by the California Department of Insurance to transact Property and Casualty insurance since 1983.

    Discover more cases with Kevin Valine as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Robert Griswold

    The Court found that the standard of care is not relevant to the claims at issue. Additionally, the expert did not appear to have expertise in disability accommodations consistent with the claims herein, nor did it appear that the expert reviewed the insurance policy exclusions.

    As a result, the motion was granted as to Griswold’s opinions that Plaintiff’s request for an emotional support animal was denied on “legitimate grounds,” and that Defendants met the applicable standard of care in their ownership, operation, property management, and maintenance with respect to Plaintiff’s request. The motion was further granted as to Griswold’s opinion regarding undue hardship, the feasibility of a reasonable accommodation, and that Defendants acted reasonably by offering to temporarily allow Plaintiff to keep Onyx on the property while Plaintiff sought to relocate. Finally, the motion was granted as to Griswold’s opinion that allowing Plaintiff to keep Onyx on the property would have violated the insurance carrier’s exclusions.

    However, the Court denied the motion as to Griswold’s opinion that the property’s insurance could have been non-renewed or canceled for allowing an animal on a breed-restriction list; that permitting Plaintiff to keep such an animal would expose Defendants to financial repercussion; and that a loss of insurance would have imposed a significant burden on the property’s residents and occupants, subject to Defendants laying a proper foundation that the applicable insurance policy excluded the animal in question.

    II. Kevin Valine

    The Court also found that Valine’s opinions regarding the appropriate standard of care for a reasonably prudent insurance broker were not relevant to the claims at issue.

    Although Defendants argued at the hearing that Valine had opined that granting Plaintiff’s accommodation would have exposed Defendants to an “uninsured exposure to risk of catastrophic proportion,” that statement appeared within his broader analysis that “D&D met the standard of care for a reasonably prudent insurance broker.”

    As a result, the Court concluded that expert testimony on this issue is unnecessary, as it would not assist the trier of fact given the irrelevance of the standard of care.

    Held

    • The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants’ expert witness Kevin J. Valine.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendants’ expert witness Robert Griswold.

    Key Takeaway

    Certain expert opinions offered by Griswold and Valine were deemed inadmissible because the standard-of-care analysis had no bearing on the claims at issue.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Chhang V. West Coast USA Properties LLC
    Docket Number: 1:23cv1335
    Court Name: United States District Court, California Eastern
    Order Date: June 02, 2026
  • Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    This case involves the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant, the City of Springfield, prohibited Plaintiffs from operating a home for residents in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. Defendant claimed their zoning ordinance prohibited the home from operating in an R-SF Zone because it is a “group home” under the City’s zoning code and there is another “group home” located within 1/4 mile. The City classified the home as a group home because the residents who occupy the home are in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. The City denied Plaintiffs’ request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and ADA.

    Plaintiffs brought claims of failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under the ADA and the FHA.

    Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts in this matter. Stephen D. Villavaso was disclosed as an expert in professional and urban planning. Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent, who Plaintiffs wish to have testify as to the number of residential listings in the City of Springfield during a given timeframe. Finally, John Majer was disclosed to provide expert opinions concerning the operation of residential group homes for substance abuse treatment.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the proposed expert witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs for the reason that their proposed testimony did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 702.

    Urban Planning Expert Witness

    Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP is a professional urban and regional planner and a land use/zoning attorney with over forty years of experience in city and regional planning, environmental regulations, land use law, public administration and zoning.

    Villavaso’s degrees include a Bachelor of Science in Economics and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of New Orleans, and a Juris Doctorate from Loyola University of New Orleans. He has served the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association, with thirty-five years of service to the APA — receiving both the Chapter’s Leadership and Distinguished Service Awards along the way. He is the Past-President of the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association.

    Get the full story on challenges to Stephen Villavaso’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent affiliated with Keller Williams Realty Elevate in Joplin, Missouri. Stevens has been practicing as a real estate professional since 2021 and is licensed by the Missouri Real Estate Commission.

    Discover more cases with Andrea Stevens as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    John M. Majer, Ph.D. is a full Professor of Psychology at Harry S. Truman College and a Consultant for the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, in Chicago, Illinois.

    Majer has extensive research experience in the field of clinical-community psychology, mostly involving persons with substance use disorders and sober living homes.

    Want to know more about the challenges John Majer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant argued that the experts’ opinions are not based on reliable methodology, are not supported by sufficient facts or data, and are based upon theories that have not been tested.

    Stephen Villavaso is an expert in professional and urban planning, who offers opinions on municipal zoning practices, the City’s application of its ordinances, and the compatibility of the spacing requirements with accepted planning principles and DOJ/HUD guidance. Andrea Stevens is a licensed real estate professional, who analyzes residential housing market conditions in Springfield, including the availability of suitable properties during the relevant timeframe. Dr. John Majer is an expert in the operation of residential recovery housing, who provides insight into the therapeutic and operational requirements of recovery homes, as well as the practical implications of spacing requirements on their viability.

    This Court agreed that the arguments raised by Defendant’s motion go to credibility and the weight of the testimony which are subjects that may be raised during cross-examination.

    However, federal courts should limit their review to the materials that were presented to the local land use board while considering reasonable accommodation claims, except in circumstances where the board prevents applicants from presenting sufficient information. This general rule however, does not apply to disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination claims.

    The Court found that the Plaintiffs were not prevented from providing the information they now seek to present. Plaintiffs were invited to resubmit their request to the proper individual, and asked to address several issues, which they chose to ignore when making their resubmission. Thus, the expert reports will be considered in the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. The expert reports will, however, be excluded in the failure to accommodate claim.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses Stephen D. Villavaso, Andrea Stevens, and Dr. John Majer.

    Key Takeaway

    Plaintiffs’ experts may be relevant under Rule 702 and at this time, there is no basis to exclude them under Daubert. However, the Court excluded Plaintiffs’ expert testimony in the failure to accommodate claim because it was not presented to the City as part of Plaintiffs’ request for accommodation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: New Beginning Sanctuary V. City Of Springfield, Missouri
    Docket Number: 6:23cv3336
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: January 22, 2026

  • Real Estate Expert’s Generalized Observations Excluded

    Real Estate Expert’s Generalized Observations Excluded

    Mohammed Zafaranchi is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and destruction of records in a federal investigation.

    The indictment alleged that Zafaranchi operated a series of call centers that defrauded homeowners by charging them for mortgage modification services that were not as represented.

    Seeking a new trial, Defendant contended that the Court erroneously excluded testimony from his expert witness, Jack Cohen.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Jack G. Cohen is a private money real estate lender, real estate developer, investment property manager, and is well-experienced in real estate mortgages and finance, and purchase and sales transactions. He is also employed as a San Fernando Realty Real estate investment director (California Bureau of Real Estate).

    Want to know more about the challenges Jack Cohen has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant sought to have Cohen opine on the Everett call center’s compliance with mortgage modification and marketing industry norms and standards, in rebuttal to the Government’s anticipated expert regarding the same.

    Nevertheless, the Court barred Cohen’s testimony because he lacked the requisite specialized knowledge to opine on such issues.

    Specifically, according to Cohen’s curriculum vitae, he has no specialized mortgage modification training, experience, or knowledge. Furthermore, his report contained only generalized representations of industry norms supported solely by his personal observations. Thus, it lacked a discussion of or reference to objective sources, such as the regulatory authorities governing the Everett call center. 

    Moreover, Cohen’s CV and report also failed to demonstrate his specialized knowledge or experience in advertising and marketing techniques more generally.

    Defendant next suggested, irrespective of the exclusion of Cohen’s testimony, that in accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 704 (the latter being implied), the Court should have excluded Randall Lowell‘s testimony.

    Lowell is a licensed real estate broker and mortgage broker, and has many years in the mortgage modification field. He has a mortgage loan underwriting certification and a U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) housing counselor certification.

    Basically Lowell is an undisputed industry expert. And during trial, he testified at length regarding the industry standards, regulatory framework, and guidance governing and informing mortgage modifications and related services. The Court concluded that this was admissible because it would assist the jury in determining whether Defendant, vis à-vis the Everett call center, solicited modification services to the public with the intent to “devise a scheme or plan to defraud, or a scheme or plan for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

    Held

    The Court committed no error in barring Jack Cohen’s testimony.

    Key Takeaway:

    Cohen has no mortgage-specific educational certifications or mortgage modification knowledge or experience. In sum, Cohen’s knowledge, background, experience, and training fall well short of what Rule 702(a) requires.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: USA V. Zafaranchi
    Docket Number: 2:22cr122
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: October 20, 2025
  • Real Estate Expert’s Opinion on the Market Value of the Miami Property Admitted

    Real Estate Expert’s Opinion on the Market Value of the Miami Property Admitted

    Plaintiffs sought the partition and sale of a Boynton Beach property, a Miami property, and a West Palm Beach property (the “Properties”).

    The Defendants sought to exclude the opinions, analysis, and testimony of George Smith, an expert witness retained by Plaintiffs to provide a Broker Opinion of Value with an opinion of market value for the Miami property at issue in this case.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    With a decade of experience in commercial and industrial real estate, George Smith has established himself as a leading broker specializing in cold storage assets. Beginning his career in 2014, he closed over $55 million in industrial and office transactions within his first two years, focusing primarily on off-market investment opportunities across Florida and the
    Southeast.

    Get the full story on challenges to George Smith’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Smith’s Qualifications

    With regard to the Daubert analysis, the Lesters did not explicitly dispute Smith’s qualifications, other than to state that he is not a licensed appraiser and has no formal training in appraisal theory or in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

    Reliability of Smith’s Methodology

    Smith was retained as an expert to create a broker opinion of value “to present the client with an opinion of market value for an industrial cold storage facility . . . using completed leases, and sales as well as current listings as indicators.”

    He explained at his deposition that he was not sure if most brokers used his exact methodology but testified that they should. Smith also testified at length about his experience and how it related to his methodology.

    The Court noted that Smith is allegedly solely going to be testifying through deposition designations and will not be appearing live at the upcoming hearing.

    Upon due consideration, the Court found that the deposition excerpts designated by Plaintiffs, in conjunction with Smith’s report, sufficiently clarified Smith’s methodology for the purpose of this Court’s Daubert analysis.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the opinions of George Smith.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court is capable of determining at a bench hearing what weight, if any, to give Smith’s opinions. Further, to the extent they seek to discredit Smith’s opinions, the Defendants are free to question other witnesses about those opinions and/or to introduce other portions of his deposition.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Romade Asset Partners, L.P. Et Al V. Lester Et Al
    Docket Number: 9:22cv81914
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
    Order Date: May 22, 2025
  • Real Estate Expert’s Use of the Sales Comparison Approach is Permissible

    Real Estate Expert’s Use of the Sales Comparison Approach is Permissible

    Residents near a biomass power plant in Madison County, Georgia, owned and operated by the defendants, allege that the plant’s noise, vibrations, light, smoke, and soot are negatively impacting their property values. They have filed nuisance and negligence claims. The Defendants are challenging the admissibility of the Plaintiffs’ expert witness, real estate appraiser Kenneth Cantrell, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702. While not disputing Cantrell’s qualifications, the Defendants argued that his appraisal, which assesses the decrease in property values due to plant noise, lacks sufficient factual basis and employs an unreliable methodology.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Kenneth Cantrell, a Georgia-based certified real estate appraiser, boasts a career spanning more than thirty years.

    Cantrell possesses a robust educational background in real estate and finance, demonstrated by his successful completion of coursework covering essential areas such as real estate valuation, finance, law, brokerage, and investment analysis. Furthermore, he has consistently pursued advanced professional development, either completing or successfully challenging numerous courses offered by esteemed organizations like the Appraisal Institute (AI) and the Commercial Investment Real Estate Council (CI), underscoring his commitment to maintaining a high level of expertise.

    Want to know more about the challenges Kenneth Cantrell has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Real estate appraiser Kenneth Cantrell used the sales comparison approach to assess the impact of the biomass plant on the Plaintiffs’ property values, claiming his work adheres to the Appraisal Institute’s Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Appraisal Institute’s Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 

    The Defendants challenged his methodology on three main points:

    1) They argued he failed to properly verify sales data for comparable properties. The Plaintiffs countered that Cantrell’s associate verified the data, which is permissible.

    2) The Defendants criticized the distance between comparable and appraised properties. The Plaintiffs responded that the rural setting justified the use of such comparables, under applicable appraisal standards.

    3) The Defendants claimed Cantrell relied on a biased report about the Madison plant’s impact. However, the Court found Cantrell’s use of that study as a factor, to determine the size of the impacted area, was permissible.

    The Court concluded that the Defendants’ criticisms pertain to the weight of Cantrell’s testimony, not its admissibility. Finding that Cantrell’s testimony is based on sufficient facts and reliable methodology, and would assist the jury, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude his testimony.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude Kenneth Cantrell’s testimony.

    Key Takeaways:

    • The Court recognized that in rural settings, broader geographic comparisons for real estate appraisals may be necessary and permissible, according to professional appraisal standards.
    • Criticisms regarding the methodology, data verification, and comparable properties were deemed to affect the weight of the appraisal evidence, not its admissibility.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Fowler Et Al V. Georgia Renewable Power LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:23cv62
    Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division
    Order Date: March 15, 2025