Here is the problem: my client's neighbor cut down 27 of their trees without permission - all stumps are visible and remain on the property. I put together a detailed report and valuation using the Trunk Formula Method. My client thought the value was a little low and has requested a cost of cure also.

My question: is it acceptable to combine the damage appraisal value with the cost of cure value, or should I do both and have them submit the one they prefer to thier lawyer?

Thanks

Dave H.

Reply to post by Dave Hawkins, on June 14, 1999 at 07:53:13:

You've raised some interesting issues Dave.

First off, I'd assume that your value results are what they are, uninfluenced by what the client wants or prefers (damaged parties always want higher awards, why not?).

I'd be curious how they determined it was low. As compared to what? What they want. What somebody else told them they should get? How do they know they also want a CoC or that it might result in a higher value?

This may well demonstrate the immdeiately preceding thread and the earlier thread that inspired it. Assume all things are the same in your analyses: TFM used size for size replacement and depreciated for Species, Condition and Location; CoC used size for size replacement (or some multiple that achieves it) and depreciated for Condition only according to the book. Species is supposed to be represented in the plant cost and Location is ignored. The result has to be higher unless you used 100% for both Species and Location in TFM. The methods are not neutral towards the facts. There are implict assumptions in CoC that bias it towards higher results unless an assumption abount less than size for size replacement is also made.

If on the other hand, CoC is methodologically preferable because it also addresses hardscape and non-tree softscape damage which did indeed occur, then maybe a higher result is warranted.

Again the analyses were out of balance if TFM addressed only tree damage and CoC also addressed other damage. TFM is inherently limited in that regard and if you want to address other damage you have to estimate it and add it in, essentially doing a CoC for that portion.

So, to answer your questions, I'd say it is approraite to combine methodologies to address all damages.

I'd want to structure my report to include all the methodologies: TFM for the trees, CoC for trees and additional and CoC less trees to break out that number. You can compare the different results and leave it for the court to decide what is equitable or reasonable, or reconcile the results to a single number. But it's still up to the court to look at your methodologies and decide what the answer is.

I would not be comfortable giving them two separate report and letting them pick and choose. Then you';ve got two different results floating around and it gives the appearance that you Independence and Objectivity have been compromised. Or that you're not very good and self contradictory.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on June 14, 1999 at 07:53:13:

Scott, thanks for the information and advice - it is appreciated. To answer your query about my client; apparently another "arborist" had quoted the damage value at approximately four times higher than my quote. He was also affiliated with the tree company that removed the trees. It was then determined that his assessment might be biases so I was called in. Go figure. I'm not sure what, if any method he used, but I don't think it was the TFM or Cost of Cure. At any rate, I don't see a problem with adding a cost of cure to my original valuation and report because there was a substantial amount of damage to the hardscape and a replacement "forest" might be justified because of proximity to a major interstate. I have discussed this with other consulting arborists and they basically agreed with you in that the cost of cure should be included in the original report. You are also correct in assuming my client is trying to get as much as possible, especially with the intitial quote being so high. However, my priorities lean towards professionalism and ehtics, and not appeasing a client who may or may not pay me for unwanted information.

Thanks again Scott, it's nice to know there's help out there.

Dave H.