The Parties were involved in a contested divorce with the main issues being the division of matrimonial property and spousal support. One of the issues that arose was the valuation of the Plaintiff ex-husband’s business. In particular, the Plaintiff challenged the report of the business valuation expert. The business evaluation expert had been appointed by the Court pursuant to Rule 6.40. The Plaintiff hired his own expert to challenge the Court-appointed expert, resulting in a battle between the two experts. The Court took notice that the Parties had each influenced the views of the experts.

One component of the valuation included a condominium complex. The Plaintiff had produced multiple appraisals, and not all of those experts were called to testify. The Court held that it would have excluded all but one of the experts pursuant to Rule 8.16(1), but for the Parties agreeing on the admissibility of the expert reports. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was allowed to submit all of the expert reports.

The Plaintiff submitted an expert report form another appraiser on a different property. The expert was required to testify at Trial pursuant to Rule 5.40(1), but the expert was unable to do so. As a result, the Court held that the appraiser’s report was removed from the agreed exhibits between the Parties, pursuant to Rule 5.39(1).