When two sides in a commercial dispute each retain an appraiser, the values rarely match — and the gap is often large. Closing that gap, or exposing why the other side’s number cannot be trusted, is the work of appraisal review and rebuttal. Done well, a review can neutralize an opposing valuation before it ever gains traction with the trier of fact. Done poorly, it reads as a second hired gun simply asserting a different number. The difference lies in method and discipline.
Here is how a credible review actually challenges an opposing appraiser’s report.
A review is its own discipline, not just a lower number
A common misconception is that rebutting an appraisal means producing a competing appraisal with a more favorable conclusion. That is not a review. Under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, appraisal review is a distinct assignment — governed by its own standard — in which a qualified reviewer evaluates the quality of another appraiser’s work: the completeness of the analysis, the adequacy of the data, the appropriateness of the methods, and the soundness of the reasoning that produced the opinion. The reviewer’s job is to assess whether the work is credible, not merely to disagree with the bottom line.
That distinction matters in court. A review grounded in professional standards carries the weight of an objective evaluation. A “my number is better” rebuttal invites the obvious question of why the reviewer’s opinion deserves more trust than the original — and often answers it unfavorably.
It targets the foundation, not the conclusion
The strongest rebuttals rarely argue about the final value directly. They work backward from it, testing the foundation the value rests on. A reviewer examines whether the scope of work matched the assignment, whether the effective date and definition of value were correct, whether the comparables were truly comparable and properly verified, whether the adjustments were supported and consistent, and whether the approaches to value were appropriately developed and reconciled. When a foundation is flawed, the conclusion built on it falls regardless of how confidently it was stated.
This is also where admissibility pressure does the work for you. California’s Sargon standard lets a judge exclude an opinion that is speculative or rests on an unsupported foundation, and amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires the proponent to show the opinion is based on sufficient facts and a reliably applied methodology. A review that documents a missing foundation is not just persuasive to a jury — it can support a motion to exclude the opposing opinion entirely.
It finds the specific, material errors
Generalized criticism is easy to dismiss. Effective rebuttal identifies concrete, material problems and explains why each one moves the value. Recurring examples in commercial disputes include comparables that are not genuinely similar in location, size, or property type; adjustments that are inconsistent or unsupported by market evidence; an income approach built on rent, vacancy, or expense assumptions the market does not support; reliance on the wrong effective date; or unverified sale data that cannot withstand the limits People v. Sanchez places on case-specific hearsay. The goal is not a long list of nitpicks but a focused set of errors significant enough to undermine confidence in the result.
It stays measured and professional in tone
Tone is strategy. A review that reads as an attack on the other appraiser personally tends to backfire; it makes the reviewer look like an advocate and can make the original appraiser sympathetic. A review that calmly documents where the work departs from accepted standards — and lets those departures speak for themselves — is far more damaging precisely because it reads as objective. Restraint is what makes the criticism credible.
It anticipates the response
The opposing appraiser will defend their work, and a strong reviewer prepares for that. The best rebuttals acknowledge the points where the original appraisal is defensible, concede them cleanly, and concentrate fire where the analysis genuinely fails. This selective focus preserves credibility and keeps the trier of fact’s attention on the errors that actually matter, rather than diluting it across arguments that will not hold.
It supports settlement as readily as trial
Most disputes resolve before trial, and a well-built review is a powerful settlement tool. When opposing counsel sees a clear, standards-based demonstration that their appraisal has material, exposable flaws, the realistic range of outcomes narrows — often enough to move negotiations. The same document that would support a motion to exclude can reshape a mediation.
The bottom line
Challenging an opposing appraiser’s report is a craft distinct from producing your own valuation. A credible review evaluates the quality of the other side’s work against professional standards, targets the foundation rather than the conclusion, identifies specific and material errors, and presents them in a measured, objective tone that withstands the appraiser’s defense. Used well, it can exclude an opinion, reshape a settlement, or simply give the trier of fact a reason to set the other number aside.
SM RE Inc. provides independent appraisal review and rebuttal in commercial real estate disputes across Southern California — standards-based evaluations built to expose what a competing valuation cannot support. Learn more on our Expert Witness & Litigation page, or contact us to discuss a matter.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between an appraisal review and a second appraisal?
A second appraisal is a new, independent opinion of value. An appraisal review is a distinct USPAP assignment that evaluates the quality and credibility of an existing appraisal — its data, methods, and reasoning — rather than simply offering a competing number.
Can an appraisal review get the opposing expert’s testimony excluded?
It can support that effort. By documenting where an opinion is speculative or unsupported, a review gives counsel the factual basis for a motion to exclude under gatekeeping standards like Sargon and amended FRE 702. Whether testimony is excluded is ultimately the court’s decision.
When should I bring in a reviewer in a commercial property dispute?
As soon as the opposing appraisal is available. An early review informs case strategy, sharpens deposition questioning of the other expert, and can drive settlement before the expense of trial.