I remember talking to the attorney that wanted to handle our appeal for the above case. I asked him how judges could possibly understand the real issues involved in our case. He said he used to clerk for a judge. Whenever they got technical cases, they too had little ability to understand the issues involved. The judge's approach to that was: "let's see who is the bad guy and throw the book at him; they will appeal anyway and we let them figure this out!"
I’ve experienced this first hand, in litigation over a real estate business. I’ll put the technical issue below, because it is funny (now), but the judge instructed something nonsensical and directly against overwhelming precedent, then he even addressed us out in the street during the lunch break (totally inappropriate) saying “as far as I can tell you are all just greedy”.
——
So our expert explained the valuation of one of a group of properties - a garage and underlying plot of land in a dense part of midtown Manhattan which was on triple net lease for 14 more years. He discounted the value of the lease payments plus a highest and best use terminal valuation of the land in year 14. Very conventional. The judge asked him how he knew what the value of the lot would be in fourteen years:
Expert: “With all due respect, you honor, that’s what expert witnesses are charged with doing, and its conventional in both business and case law”
Judge: “you don’t know what it will be worth, make it zero”.
Expert: “Zero is also a valuation, your honor”.
Judge: “I don’t care - you value any other properties this way”
Expert: “all of them”
Judge: “change them all to zero”
Meanwhile, I’m jumping out of my skin (I’m lead plaintiff here), but my lawyer is whispering “calm down, the appeal is a lock now”.
Fortunately, he was crazy to the other guys as well, and we settled at a decent number. I think that was the judge’s true objective - get out of my courtroom. Still, I disapprove of any judge who doesn’t place the law first and foremost.
