![robakfeb17 robakfeb17](https://eu-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/bltabaa95ef14172c61/blt9f326e9a4e22260b/673376f9c1d53b1343f789f9/robakfeb17_2.jpg?width=1280&auto=webp&quality=95&format=jpg&disable=upscale)
Almost all valuation disputes take place long after the date of valuation. The argument then often turns, not just to the evidence considered by the appraiser or appraisers around the valuation date, but also on what could have or should have been considered. Since all valuations contain an implicit prophecy of the future, few fact finders will agree to ignore completely the actual path of events after the valuation date. After all, many of those events may have been foreseeable on the valuation date, even though the appraiser failed to predict them.
When is such reliance on subsequent events reasonable and appropriate? And, to what extent? Courts differ greatly in their reliance and weighting of subsequent events. Let’s attempt to tease...
Unlock All Access Premium Subscription
Get Trusts & Estates articles, digital editions, and an optional print subscription. Choose your subscription now and dive into expert insights today!
Already Subscribed?