Category: Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness

  • Economic Expert’s Opinions on Property Valuation Admitted in Cook County Tax Sale Case

    Economic Expert’s Opinions on Property Valuation Admitted in Cook County Tax Sale Case

    Cook County ran an annual property tax sale targeting homeowners behind on property taxes. When taxes went unpaid, the County obtained court orders to sell tax liens on delinquent properties. Private tax buyers then paid the outstanding taxes in exchange for collecting repayment, plus interest, from property owners. If the owners didn’t repay within about 30 months, buyers could petition for a tax deed and take ownership.

    Michelle Kidd and Goyce H. Rates, two homeowners who lost their properties through this system, sued alongside two advocacy groups, Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP) and Palenque LSNA. They alleged the County’s tax sale process amounted to unconstitutional takings, excessive fines, and due process violations. Their homes, lost for debts under $10,000, were valued by the County between $166,000 and $389,000. Yet neither homeowner received compensation for the equity lost.

    As part of the litigation, the Plaintiffs introduced Dr. William G. Hamm, an economist who supported the reliability of Cook County’s mass appraisal system to estimate market values. The Defendants countered with Ron DeVries, a real estate expert who challenged that approach. Both sides moved to exclude the other’s expert.

    Economic Valuation Expert Witness

    William G. Hamm is a professional economist and a Managing Director of Berkeley Research Group, LLC (“BRG”), an expert services and economics consulting firm headquartered in Emeryville, California.

    Hamm has a BA from Dartmouth College and a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan.

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

    Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness

    Ron DeVries‘ valuation experience includes industrial, retail, office, hotel, multi-family (including FNMA/Freddie, HUD as well as LIHTC deals), and residential subdivisions for uses ranging from due diligence and financing to review appraisal.

    DeVries is a frequent speaker at the Chicago Real Estate Council, the Chicagoland Apartment Association as well as private events for clients. He has testified as an expert witness in a variety of matters. DeVries is past national Chair of Education for the Appraisal Institute and previously served on the Appraisal Institute’s Board of Directors, and numerous committees.  

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

    Discussion by the Court

    William G. Hamm (Plaintiffs’ Expert)

    Qualifications

    The Court found William G. Hamm qualified to testify. He is a professional economist and Managing Director at Berkeley Research Group with a PhD in economics. His experience includes building models to assess the market value of mortgage-related assets. Though not a licensed appraiser, the Court ruled that this does not disqualify him from evaluating Cook County’s mass appraisal system. His qualifications allow him to speak on complex modeling used to estimate real estate value.

    Reliability

    Hamm’s methodology involved analyzing how Cook County assesses property values using its Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system. He reviewed public data, used certified Board of Review assessments, and calculated lost equity across a sample of properties. He acknowledged imperfections in the data and proposed interpolation to improve accuracy. The Court concluded that his methods were sound, especially given the lack of alternative sale data, and ruled that criticisms of his data sources go to weight, not admissibility.

    Ron DeVries (Defendants’ Expert)

    Qualifications

    The Court found DeVries qualified as an expert. He is a licensed real estate appraiser with decades of experience in property valuation. While he lacks experience in mass appraisal modeling, he is qualified to critique how accurately Cook County’s assessments reflect market value based on his appraisal experience.

    Reliability

    DeVries relied largely on his own professional knowledge to evaluate weaknesses in the County’s system, such as infrequent assessments and a lack of individualized property inspections. Although his report lacked citations to specific county documents, the Court found this appropriate for the nature of his testimony. The Court held that any gaps in his review go to credibility, not admissibility.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude William G. Hamm, finding his economic expertise and valuation methods reliable and admissible.

    The Court also denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Ron DeVries, holding his appraisal-based critique of Cook County’s assessments was qualified and relevant under Rule 702.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court admitted both expert witnesses, ruling that Dr. William G. Hamm’s economic modeling and Ron DeVries’s appraisal-based critique were sufficiently qualified and reliable. Their testimony will play a central role in evaluating the constitutionality of Cook County’s tax sale system.

    Case Details

    Case Caption: Kidd v. Pappas
    Docket Number: 1:22cv7061
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
    Order Date: July 07, 2025
  • Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness’ Testimony on Appreciation Impairment Damages Admitted

    Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness’ Testimony on Appreciation Impairment Damages Admitted

    108 named Plaintiffs admitted that they purchased their Shipyard properties for residential purposes.

    Plaintiffs each bought units on Parcel A of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (“HPNS”). HPNS is a Superfund site where Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (“TtEC”) conducted environmental remediation work in certain areas years before the Plaintiffs bought their units. Plaintiffs now bring claims against the Tetra Tech Defendants for purported lost profits, in addition to other damages, under theories of fraud and misrepresentation (among other claims not addressed in this motion).

    Plaintiffs sought class certification, citing their claims for negligence, nuisance, common law fraud, and California statutory fraud.

    In support of their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs submitted a nine-page declaration from their expert, Brett Reynolds. He investigated multiple areas of potential damages including appreciation impairment, and excess charges incurred by impacted Shipyards homeowners.

    The Defendants moved to exclude Reynolds’ opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. They argued that Reynolds lacked the necessary expertise to offer the opinions in his declaration and that the methodology underlying his conclusions was fundamentally flawed, rendering his testimony unreliable.

    Real Estate Valuation Expert Witness

    Brett Reynolds is a licensed appraiser with almost 18 years of experience in the real estate industry, with an emphasis on valuation, acquisition, and asset management.

    He has a degree in economics from the University of Southern California and holds the top designations in the appraisal profession. Reynolds has been a Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) since 2008 and a Certified Commercial Investment Manager (CCIM) since 2009. He has been a licensed appraiser in the State of California (Certified General License 042466) since 2007. He has testified as an expert witness in both Federal Tax Court and California State Court.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Reynolds opined on the two primary sources of economic damages incurred by the class members: (1) appreciation impairment/ diminution in value of the Parcel A homes owned by the putative class members, and (2) excess tax charges/ Mello-Roos damages.

    For the appreciation impairment damages, Reynolds stated that he was provided with a list of 241 market-rate homes that had been sold on Parcel A as of August 2, 2018. Assuming an average appreciation impairment of 20.4%, he concluded that these units have suffered a total appreciation impairment of $55,523,536. Additionally, Reynolds calculated the amount of past Mello-Roos liabilities incurred by each of the 241 market-rate homes sold on Parcel A on the same date. Assuming certain Communities Facilities District (CFD) rates as specified in his declaration, Reynolds opined that the Parcel A homeowners have incurred $8,393,735.00 in Mello-Roos liabilities.

    Defendants said that Reynolds “has no relevant expertise on which to base his opinion on the cutoff date Plaintiffs use for the class definition.”

    However, Reynolds did not express a substantive opinion about the cutoff date for Plaintiffs’ class definition. Reynolds mentioned events that took place in 2018, but that is not in the context of giving an opinion as to why August 2, 2018, and not, say, another date in 2018, might be the proper cut-off date. Consequently, the Court overruled this objection.

    For Reynolds’ methodology, Defendants’ main contention is that Reynolds’ choice of index was wrong because it “measures different types of homes than those present at the shipyard” and also “measures non-representative neighborhoods.” The Court decided that the details of what Reynolds “did or didn’t take into account in running his analysis . . . may be grist for a good cross-examination at trial, but they do not play a material role in deciding whether [Reynolds’] work should be admitted under Rule 702.”

    According to the Court, Plaintiffs have not identified any common evidence that might warrant class certification. This shortfall is particularly problematic for causation, which is a necessary element of each of the claims for which they are seeking certification. Plaintiffs relied solely on the Reynolds declaration as the ostensible common proof of causation. The Reynolds declaration is also identified as the only common evidence of the damages the class suffered because of Defendants’ alleged fraud and negligent misrepresentation. But the Reynolds’ declaration did not even try to supply class-wide proof on these issues. Also, Reynolds did not offer any opinions whatsoever about causation. 

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Brett Reynolds.

    Key Takeaway:

    Reynolds investigated multiple areas of potential damages. Exclusion is denied because it was the Court’s opinion that the details of what Reynolds “did or didn’t take into account in running his analysis . . . may be grist for a good cross-examination at trial, but they do not play a material role in deciding whether [Reynolds’] work should be admitted.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Pennington Et Al V. Tetra Tech, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:18cv5330
    Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
    Order Date: December 23, 2024