Home News Judge dismisses claim in Marin City home appraisal lawsuit

Judge dismisses claim in Marin City home appraisal lawsuit

by admin
0 comment

A federal judge has dismissed the “negligent misrepresentation” claim in a lawsuit filed by a Marin City couple, arguing that their home’s valuation was below its market value based on their race.

A ruling issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney dismissed the lawsuit against the San Rafael Appraiser. A judge ruled against the plaintiffs and explained how reliance on alleged misrepresentation led Paul Austin and his wife, Tenisha Tate Austin, to their decision to seek a mortgage based on that valuation. I could not tell you how much.

The Austins, who are both black, had their home appraised in February 2020 for $455,000 less than the March 2019 appraisal. It sued Mirror of Mirrors and Perotti Real Estate Appraiser in federal court.

The allegation of negligent misrepresentation suggests that the appraiser provided an unbiased valuation of the home, and that the Austins reasonably relied on that representation in trying to secure favorable terms for their mortgage. , which stems from the couple’s allegation that the appraiser made false representations.

The judge objected, saying there was nothing to suggest that “Austin believed the statements in Miller’s forensic report to be true.”

The Austins sought an appraisal because they wanted to take advantage of the low interest rates and obtain additional funds to complete renovations to their home.

Miller was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, along with AMC Links LLC, which conducted a second appraisal and hired her to do the job at the request of an Austin mortgage broker.

Paul Austin said he plans to settle the case.

“This story has eyes,” he said. “Despite their efforts to throw everything away.”

Liza Kristol Demann, the Bay Area attorney representing Austin, said there were still six claims pending. It alleges that it violated the 2008 Civil Rights Act, the California Unruh Act, which provides protection from discrimination, and the Unfair Competition Act.

“While we disagree with the judge’s decision on the negligent misrepresentation claim, we are committed to pursuing the core allegations of housing discrimination,” she said. It’s still valid.”

The lawsuit has a settlement meeting scheduled for Sept. 14, Cristol-Deman said.

A representative for Janet Miller’s office declined to comment.

You may also like