Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

sxswnxnw t1_j6mxr5v wrote

Of course he is. People countersue all the time.

10

Paral3lC0smos t1_j6myxzr wrote

Sorry for appearing ignorant, but is this (or does it appear to be) a legit counter suit, or is it some sort of tactic to settle at mediation out of court? I guess, I don’t understand how does it make sense to counter sue if someone is suing you 🤔

8

frolicndetour t1_j6n3wxy wrote

No, this doesn't appear to be a legitimate countersuit. Statements made in pleadings or court are usually exempt from defamation claims because then literally everyone sued or charged with a crime would sue for defamation. It's not even a useful tactic for mediation because the counterclaim will immediately get thrown out.

Counterclaims make sense sometimes but this isn't it.

8

HorsieJuice t1_j6nj36p wrote

I understood the article to say that he's claiming defamation due to statements they made in the press.

5

YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6n54fj wrote

Do you have legal training? Have you read the court documents? If not, how are you so sure of your opinion?

−13

frolicndetour t1_j6n8rzd wrote

I've been a lawyer for 20 years and regardless of what the pleadings say, there is absolute privilege against defamation in court proceedings.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/absolute_privilege#:~:text=Absolute%20privilege%2C%20in%20defamation%20cases,and%20is%20a%20complete%20defense.

16

KingBooRadley t1_j6nh5i6 wrote

As we learned in law school, never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Thanks for this bold reminder.

7

YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6nnnvr wrote

This is from the article:

"Consequently, Lanham argues that Connolly and Mott knowingly engaged in a media campaign to spread false and defamatory statements about him and failed to disclose material facts that would have cast doubt on their accusations. Lanham argues they did so with actual malice—that is, with “knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements.”"

0

frolicndetour t1_j6nuft9 wrote

Fair, statements to the media would not be protected, although I'd have to read the articles. I've read some and the majority seem to be quoting the complaint, which would still be covered by the court protection. They also included the opinions of the homeowners; opinions are not defamation. Calling someone racist is generally held to be an opinion. If they made a statement of fact in the media that is false, then the counterclaim may have legs.

2

YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6n0e6s wrote

Sounds like your mind is already made up on the subject. Did you bother to read the article?

−10

JBG1973 t1_j6nx4ck wrote

Googling a few more articles about this case leads to the address:

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/appraisal-firm-loandepot-sued-by-black-couple-for-bias/

The issue in this case is that the house is on the corner, and the address is not on Northern Parkway. This is the section of Northern between Charles and York, not the section between Charles and 83 which is 6 lanes rather than 4 lanes.

The fact that it is on the corner and has a driveway/garage and sidewalk access from a corner street is more desirable than if it was in the middle of the block on Northern.

The house at the center of the dispute:

The computer estimate from redfin is $627,550. The state assessment for 1/22 is 622,000.
4 beds, 3.5 bath, 2600 square feet finished, 11, 395 square feet land. They have made "tens of thousands" of improvements since the initial purchase, although I have not seen any updated pictures of specifics since the listing photos when they bought it.

Across the street and still on Northern:

Sold 2/4/21 for $450K. Redfin currently estimates it at 495,900 It was assessed at $462, 300 by the state at the same time the house in question was. It has 1930 square feet, 2.5 baths, and 10, 772 square feet of land. I don't see the bedrooms listed. This house has a "newer gourmet" kitchen with the heavy tile that is now considered very out.

The house in question in the article that sold next door had a new kitchen (we don't know what improvements the couple in question made) and 1970's bathroom. To get to this house you will need to enter the back door through the kitchen and walk around the house to get to the front door. This is different than the house in the center of the controversy in which you can park on the side of the house and take a direct sidewalk to the front door.

The comp that sold for $465 on 8/21/21 is now listed on Redfin at $526 and is assessed by the city at $487,000. It has 2.5 baths, beds not listed, 1750 sq feet above grade living area and 12671 sq foot lot.

In order to get a 472 appraisal compared to the house that sold at the same time for $465 gives $7 k for an additional 950 square feet of living area, an additional bathroom and side access to the front of the house without stopping on Northern Blvd (which I believe is no parking). 140 square feet of sunroom reduces the additional square feet from 950 to 700.

It is hard for me to believe that the $472 appraisal was particularly accurate. The $750 appraisal does not appropriately address the Northern Blvd problem. However, I have seen plenty of appraisals for houses on busy roads that do not properly knock of for how undesirable busy roads are.

It is more likely that the "staging/impression of who lived there" led to a 10% devaluation than the 50% devaluation that the NY times claimed. It is hard for me to understand that someone would buy $750K for a house on Northern with a very dated 1949 façade. You have a lot of options at that price and the houses behind it completely on Churchwardens were selling for less.

While not headline grabbing, a consistent 10% devaluation of property values for black homeowners has pretty significant long term consequences for building wealth.

8

_The_Bear t1_j6n3231 wrote

Wish they gave us square footage on the comps. It's my understanding that comps are used to establish a price per square foot. Then you use that price per square foot to determine the appropriate price for the house in question. They mention a significant above ground square footage difference between the house in question and the neighboring house that sold for 460k or whatever it was. Are we comparing a 2400sqft 3/2 to a 2500sqft 3/2? In which case it's likely a fair comp, or are we comparing a 2000sqft 3/2 to a 3000sqft 5/3 in which case, yeah it's probably racist AF.

2

YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6n58sz wrote

I would like to see then list specific numbers but they probably couldn't do that without publicly disclosing the address of the subject property. From the article:

"In their initial complaint, Connolly and Mott lambasted Lanham for his “unjustifiably large negative adjustments” to the comparables he selected and, while acknowledging that some adjustment may have been necessary for the subject property’s proximity to Northern Parkway, write that “a negative adjustment of ten percent is excessive and is inconsistent with proper appraisal practices.”

Additionally, Connolly and Mott praise the second appraiser for not choosing any comps located on Northern Parkway, writing that it demonstrates the “illegitimacy of using Northern Parkway as a boundary” and note that the second appraiser only adjusted a negative two percent for being on a busy street—which they argue is “consistent with industry standards.”

  1. Sale of House Next Door: On the date Lanham completed his appraisal in June 2021, the house directly next door to the Subject Property was listed for sale for $500,000. It had been on the market for over 30 days at the time and only 10 days after Lanham completed his appraisal, the list price was lowered to $475,000. Another month passed before this property was under contract and finally closed at $465,000 in August 2021.

Lanham’s suit points out that the house’s sale price directly next to the Subject Property was $7,000 below his appraised value. While the Subject Property “had more above grade living area square footage,” Lanham argues that the kitchen of the house directly next door had (A) a kitchen with improvements that made it more desirable than the kitchen of the Subject Property, and (B) an improved sunroom that was not present at the Subject Property.

“Some value adjustments to [the house next door] would be necessary to compare it to [the Subject Property], but the location of [the house next door], on the same busy road as [the Subject Property], makes [the house next door] a good comparable property and the fact that [it] sold for $465,000 shortly after the effective date of Mr. Lanham’s appraisal supports and validates the amount of Mr. Lanham’s appraisal,” reads Lanham’s counterclaim."

Ultimately an actual comp trumps "industry practicies". Ie I could say that typically houses on a busy street sell for 3% less, but if there is a comp at a lower valuation that trumps what happens typically. Northern Parkway is a very busy road so people might discount houses directly on it much more than a typical busy street.

Maybe 10-20% is not that crazy:

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/much-busy-road-lower-real-estate-value-84306.html

In 2009, "The Washington Post" quoted real estate appraiser Wayne Wallace on the matter of property value loss for locations on a busy road. On average, Wallace said he "deducts 10 to 20 percent for a property on a main thoroughfare." The exceptions to his general rule include condo properties -- whose value actually increases when located next to a main road -- and "bull market" conditions, which are much more applicable in 2013 than at the time of the article.

6

_The_Bear t1_j6n8v3c wrote

Yeah if you've got an identical house that certainly trumps industry practices. But you pretty clearly don't have that situation. The neighbor has a sunroom, an updated kitchen, and less above ground square footage. Having less square footage while having an additional sunroom eating up that square footage likely means less bedrooms. We aren't comparing apples to apples where we can attribute the hit in sale value soley to northern parkway. Thats why we have to rely on industry practices.

1

PigtownDesign t1_j6n9suo wrote

There has also been a house a block or two from this house on Northern Parkway that's been on the market for at least two years.

1

YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6no7gf wrote

I don't have an opinion unless I were to take a look at the actual addresses and features of the house. You are making a lot of assumptions there.

−2

JBG1973 t1_j6p2ke5 wrote

If you care it is not that hard to take an actual look. The information is pretty available via google.

2

HorsieJuice t1_j6np1yf wrote

The article gives enough details about the properties (neighborhood, adjacent street, sell prices and sell dates of it and neighboring properties) that I was able to find them on zillow and redfin in about a minute. I'm not going to give the addresses, but what I could find are:

Subject property: 4 bed, 3.5 bath, 2600 sq ft, 0.26 acre

Neighbor property (that sold for $465k): 3 bed, 3 bath, 2068 sq ft, 0.29 acres

If the Subject Houses were worth the same $/sq ft ($225/sq ft) as the Neighbor, then the Subject House would be worth $585k. While it's a little tough to tell because the pics for the Subject Property aren't very good, the interior finishes and condition appear to be comparable between the two houses, except for the kitchen, which is much nicer in the Neighbor Property. There are no pics of the Subject House's finished basement, but the one in the Neighbor Property looks better than most, so I suspect it has an edge there. The Neighbor House is more attractive from the outside while the landscapings are comparable. It would make sense to me that the Subject House would be appraised at a lower price per sq ft than the Neighbors. How much lower? I'm not sure, but I'd expect no less than $200/sq ft or $520k. IMO, the notion that $550k ($212/sq ft) was "conservative" was wrong - that sounds about right to me. Additionally, the penalty for being directly on Northern Parkway appears to be at least 20%.

$472k puts the subject house at $181/sq ft, which is pretty low, but it's closer than $288/sq ft that the second appraiser put it at, which is nuts. The handful of houses that sell that high are nicer in virtually every way.

3

JBG1973 t1_j6p238i wrote

To get to 2078 square feet you have 1750 sq feet above grade and 328 sq feet for a finished basement area. Based on the pictures in the listing this finished basement area is knotty pine walls/tile floor that was being used as a weight room. This 328 square feet is not as valuable as the above ground space in the other house. For reasons I do not understand, the sun room does not appear to be in the listing square feet. In the floor plans in the listing they give the sun room as 14 ft x 9' 7". This would be an addition 134 sq feet of space.

The house that the lawsuit is about is 2600 above grade and 940 sf finished basement. There are no photos of the finished basement in the previous listing, but it does say it has a jetted tub and could be a separate living space.

I generally agree with your analysis, but the size comparison should be 1864 sq ft (giving the sun room) to 2600 sq ft OR 2212 sq ft to 3540 sq ft.

2

DolemiteGK t1_j6p3u16 wrote

>the interior finishes and condition appear to be comparable between the two houses, except for the kitchen, which is much nicer in the Neighbor Property

How much difference in the kitchen? This would be a MAJOR factor in value for me - more than equal SF for sure.

1

[deleted] t1_j6n4bmp wrote

[deleted]

1

YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6n4lof wrote

What evidence did you use to come to that conclusion? The world is a complicated place which is why we have a structured legal process in order to determine whose side of the story is accurate.

2