Commercial Appraiser, #commercialappraiser, #cre, #realestate, #appraiser, Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-251-3959 Cell424-218-9580 Skype WebSite: https://www.harriscompanyrec.com ;Resume: https://www.harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiserresume2013locked.pdf ;Commercial Appraiser Blog: https://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ ; https://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ ;The LOoP! a Google CSE: https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy ; We Make a Simple Pledge to
Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality
Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public
Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship
Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAITax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 6:04 AM
To: Commercial Appraiser
Subject: Business Law Summaries Distributed May 2, 2014 If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add firstname.lastname@example.org to your address book.
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.
Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com
Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict
Stop Eviscerating Campaign Rules
Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean implores the Supreme Court to end its rampage against election laws, beginning with ruling properly in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. Read Article
Weekly Opinion SummariesBusiness Law
Weekly Summaries Distributed May 2, 2014 · AAA Valley Gravel, Inc. v. Totaro
Business Law, Contracts
Alaska Supreme Court· Kentucky Fried Chicken of McAlester v. Snell
Business Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law
Oklahoma Supreme Court
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia
AAA Valley Gravel, Inc. v. TotaroCourt: Alaska Supreme Court Docket: S-14680Opinion Date: April 25, 2014Judge: Per curiam Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts This appeal stemmed from a 1984 gravel lease, a later sublease, and overriding royalty payments under the sublease. The Supreme Court had vacated a judgment in favor of Alicia Totaro, the sublease’s overriding royalty interest holder, and remanded for a determination whether the original gravel lease between Herman Ramirez and Bill Nelson (d/b/a Cosmos Developers, Inc.), was an exclusive lease for purposes of gravel removal. The superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Ramirez and Nelson intended the original gravel lease to be an exclusive lease. That finding led to the conclusion that the sublease from Cosmos to AAA Valley Gravel, Inc. was exclusive and that AAA Valley Gravel’s gravel extraction under the sublease triggered continued overriding royalty obligations to Totaro. Because AAA Valley Gravel had discontinued the overriding royalty payments to Totaro in 1998 when it purchased the property from Ramirez, the superior court entered judgment in favor of Totaro for nearly $1 million in past royalty payments, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. AAA Valley Gravel appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by: (1) failing to rule that the original gravel lease’s failure to mention exclusivity rendered the gravel lease non-exclusive as a matter of law; (2) implying exclusivity in the original gravel lease as a matter of law; (3) placing the burden of persuasion on the exclusivity issue on AAA Valley Gravel; (4) finding that the original gravel lease conveyed an exclusive right to extract gravel from Ramirez’s property; (5) failing to find that the original gravel lease expired 10 to 12 years after its inception; and (6) failing to specify in the final judgment when the original gravel lease would terminate. Ramirez, nominally an appellee in this appeal, also contended that the superior court erred; Ramirez essentially joined in most of AAA Valley Gravel’s arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment. https://j.st/ZJoy View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Kentucky Fried Chicken of McAlester v. SnellCourt: Oklahoma Supreme Court Docket: 110829Opinion Date: April 29, 2014Judge: Watt Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law Respondent-claimant, Ben Snell was employed by petitioner-employer Kentucky Fried Chicken of McAlester. He alleged that while at work he slipped and fell while carrying a tray of chicken weighing approximately 40 to 50 pounds. The trial court awarded claimant temporary total disability (TTD) and reasonable and necessary medical treatment for injuries to his neck, the second finger of his right hand, and aggravation of pre-existing conditions to his left knee and low back. All other issues were reserved. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) sustained the award. In its opinion, COCA ruled the standard of review in this case was the "any competent evidence" standard because of a holding in a previous opinion by the same division, "Westoak Industries, Inc. v. DeLeon," which held 85 O.S. 2011 sec. 340(D)(4), setting out "against the clear weight of the evidence" as the appellate standard of review in workers' compensation cases, constituted a violation of the separation of powers provision of the Oklahoma Constitution. Westoak was completely at odds with another COCA opinion, "Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodward." "Harvey" held section 340(D)(4) was not unconstitutional as a separation of powers violation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue as one of first impression since certiorari was not sought in either of the previous cases. The Court concluded that there was no constitutional separation of powers prohibition in in the Okla.Const., art IV, section 1 against the Legislature's adoption of the "against the clear weight of the evidence" standard of review in 85 O.S. 2011 sec. 340(D)(4). COCA's opinion was therefore vacated. Because "Westoak" and "Harvey" were totally inconsistent with the views expressed in this opinion, they were both specifically overruled. https://j.st/ZJpT View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Forward to a FriendHave friends who like law? Forward this email.
Find Us on FacebookLike Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.
Follow Us on TwitterFollow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.
Justia.com Free Legal Information Portalwww.Justia.comFederal & State Case Law, Codes & RegsLaw.Justia.comUS Federal Case Filings & DocketsDockets.Justia.comDaily Opinion SummariesDaily.Justia.com
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at email@example.com.Unsubscribe From This Newsletteror unsubscribe firstname.lastname@example.org immediately here."Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043 USAHave a Happy Day!Hug the Pug© 2011, Justia Inc.