What an Appraisal Expert Knows: Development vs. Reporting and Why the Distinction Matters

Time to Read: 3 Minutes
Technical Level: Moderate

In litigation, attorneys often evaluate an appraisal based on the report, but the report is only the final step in a longer process. It does not create credibility; it reflects the appraiser’s ability to communicate the reasoning behind the value opinion. When reports leave that reasoning out, or oversimplify it, they invite confusion, misinterpretation, and challenge.

As appraisal experts, we’ve reviewed countless reports where the words on the page failed to communicate how the opinion of value was developed. If the only explanation lives in the appraiser’s mind, there’s no way for the reader, whether an attorney, judge, or opposing expert, to understand the reported opinions and conclusions. USPAP requires that every assignment result be communicated clearly, not just stated. The report should not merely present a conclusion, but show how that conclusion was reached. Understanding the difference between development and reporting is essential for attorneys assessing whether an appraisal is credible, or just looks complete on the surface.

Development: Where the Opinion is Formed

Development refers to everything the appraiser does before the report is written. Under USPAP Standard 1, development requires the appraiser to:

• Identify the appraisal problem
• Determine the scope of work
• Analyze market data and relevant characteristics
• Select and apply appropriate valuation methods
• Reconcile the findings into a final opinion of value

The scope must result in the work being credible, or worthy of belief, based on the intended use of the assignment. This is where professional judgment is applied, supported by research and methodology. Experience can help appraisers know where to look, but it never substitutes for evidence, analysis, or structure.

Reporting: Where Credibility is Demonstrated

Reporting is governed by USPAP Standard 2 and serves one purpose: to communicate clearly what was done and how the conclusions were reached. The report should explain to the intended audience:

• What analysis was performed
• Why it was done that way
• How each opinion and conclusion (not just the final value) was supported

The report is not the appraisal itself. It is the evidence of development. It shows intended users, and foreseeable parties such as courts and opposing counsel, whether the valuation was developed in a credible and compliant manner.

When reports fail to explain the logic behind adjustments, methods, or conclusions, users may view the work as interpretive or subjective rather than analytical. That perception undermines credibility and may be a reporting deficiency under USPAP.

When Reporting Falls Short

A weak report doesn’t always mean the analysis was flawed, but it can leave the reader without enough information to evaluate the result. This is especially problematic when the intended use includes foreseeable third parties like courts, regulators, or opposing counsel.

Some appraisers, particularly those with deep experience, may assume their conclusions are self-evident. They rely on intuition or familiarity without documenting the reasoning. But under USPAP, every property is unique, and every opinion or conclusion must be supported (by relevant evidence and logic). A report that reads more like interpretive art than analysis erodes confidence, both in and out of court.

Why the Distinction Matters

When attorneys ask why a report feels incomplete or raises questions, the answer is often in the disconnect between development and reporting. The report may be factually accurate but fail to communicate the support behind key conclusions. Or it may state findings without explaining the path taken to reach them.

In litigation, this is not a minor issue. Appraisal standards require conclusions to be communicated in a manner that is clear, accurate, and not misleading, and do not permit reporting that creates the appearance of bias, lacks support, or obscures how the result was developed.

---

The Bottom Line

A well-supported appraisal must be both credibly developed and clearly and accurately reported. The report is the final step in that process, and the most prominent window most parties have into the appraiser’s reasoning.

If the report doesn’t show how each conclusion was reached, it doesn’t matter how well the work was performed. The report fails to lead the reader, and may mislead them instead. In litigation, that gap between what was done and what was said can weaken a case, undermine expert credibility, or invite challenge where none should exist.

Attorneys reviewing an appraisal should ask not only what the expert concluded, but whether the story they told makes the conclusion believable, and defensible.

---