When One Party Brings Their Own Appraiser — What Happens Next?

In family law matters involving real estate, it’s not uncommon for one party to retain their own appraiser—often early in the process and sometimes without input from the other side.

At first glance, this may seem efficient.

But in practice, it often raises a critical question:

What happens when the other side doesn’t accept that appraisal?

In many cases, this is where valuation issues become more complex—and where delays, additional costs, and disputes begin to surface.

1. Initial Reaction: Scrutiny and Skepticism

When one party presents an appraisal, the opposing side will typically:

• Review the report in detail

• Assess the credibility of the appraiser

• Examine whether the analysis appears balanced or advocacy-driven

Even when the report is well-prepared, there is often an inherent level of skepticism—particularly if the appraiser was retained unilaterally.

The issue isn’t always the value itself—it’s whether the report is perceived as independent and objective.

2. Common Outcomes in Practice

From here, one of several paths usually follows:

A. The Report Is Accepted

If the appraisal is clearly supported and reasonable, the other side may accept it—though this is less common in contested matters.

B. A Second Appraisal Is Ordered

The opposing party may retain their own appraiser, leading to:

• Two separate reports

• Potentially different conclusions

• A need to reconcile the difference

C. The Report Is Challenged

If there are perceived weaknesses—such as:

• Questionable comparable sales

• Inconsistent adjustments

• Lack of transparency

The report may be directly challenged, delaying progress.

3. The Risk of “Advocacy-Driven” Appraisals

One of the key concerns in these situations is whether the appraisal appears to support a position rather than reflect market evidence.

Even unintentionally, a report can come across as biased if:

• Comparable selection appears selective

• Adjustments push consistently in one direction

• The reasoning is not clearly explained

In these cases, the appraisal becomes vulnerable—not necessarily because it’s wrong, but because it’s difficult to defend under scrutiny.

4. Why This Often Leads to Delays

Once a report is questioned, the file can quickly slow down:

• A second appraisal is commissioned

• Lawyers spend time comparing reports

• Additional negotiations or expert opinions are required

In some cases, valuation becomes the main obstacle to settlement.

What started as an attempt to move things forward can end up doing the opposite.

5. A More Practical Approach: Neutral or Joint Appraisals

To avoid these issues, many files benefit from a different approach:

• Retaining a single, independent appraiser jointly

• Clearly defining the effective date of valuation

• Ensuring the report is prepared with potential scrutiny in mind

This often results in:

• Greater acceptance from both parties

• Reduced back-and-forth

• A smoother path toward resolution

6. What Makes an Appraisal More Likely to Be Accepted?

Regardless of who retains the appraiser, reports are more likely to be accepted when they:

• Demonstrate clear independence

• Use well-supported and relevant comparable sales

• Apply consistent, market-based adjustments

• Provide transparent reasoning and reconciliation

In Canada, adherence to standards set by the Appraisal Institute of Canada and compliance with CUSPAP also play an important role in credibility.

Why This Matters in Family Law

When one party brings their own appraiser, it doesn’t automatically create a problem—but it does introduce risk.

That risk typically shows up as:

• Disagreement over value

• Additional expert costs

• Delays in negotiation or settlement

Understanding how these situations unfold allows for better decisions early in the file.

Final Thoughts

When one party brings their own appraiser, the process doesn’t end—it often just begins.

The key question becomes:

Is the report strong enough to withstand scrutiny from the other side?

Because in many cases, the outcome isn’t determined by the number—it’s determined by how well that number can be defended.