Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00110/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00110-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 871
Nature of Suit: IRS 3rd Party Suits 26 USC 7609 (U.S. plaintiff)
Cause of Action: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH INVESTMENT LP, a California

Limited Partnership,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

ORDER RE MOTION TO ADMIT

LAY OPINION TESTIMONY AS TO

v. PROPERTY VALUE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff seeks admission of Don Ballantyne’s handwritten valuation notes (Exh. 2004,

2011, and 2015), Susanne C. Ballantyne’s notes documenting an unaccepted offer by a

third-party (Exh. 2016), and both Don and Susanne Ballantyne’s testimony for the purpose

of determining the value of a 12.5% undivided interest in the Fourth Avenue property. For

the reasons that follow, this motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Don Ballantyne testified at trial that he valued a 12.5% interest in the Fourth Avenue

property for three transactions for partnership units in Fourth Investment, LP, (“Fourth”): (1)

between Fourth and Rhodes for a 1% interest in Fourth (Exh. 2004); (2) between Fourth and

Hemet C for a 1% interest in Fourth (Exh. 2011); and (3) between the Susanne C. Ballantyne

Trust and Hemet C for sale of the Trust’s 98% interest in Fourth (Exh. 2015). With respect

to the first two transactions, Mr. Ballantyne testified that he prepared valuations as an advisor

to the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust “from the Fourth Investment point of view.” With respect

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

to the third transaction, although the record is not clear as to whether Mr. Ballantyne was

acting as an advisor to the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust or in his capacity as an officer of

Hemet C’s general partner, Snow Valley Holdings, Plaintiff’s brief is directed solely at

whether Mr. Ballantyne’s opinion is admissible as the spouse of Susanne C. Ballantyne and

as an advisor to her trust. (See Mot. at 2) 

The Court admitted Don Ballantyne’s testimony, his valuation notes, and Susanne

Ballantyne’s notes of a third-party offer for the purpose of showing the process Mr.

Ballantyne used to calculate the value of the 12.5% interest in the property. However, the

Court denied without prejudice their admission for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., the

true value of this interest, and requested briefing on the issue of whether an informal advisor

to the owner of commercial property can offer lay opinion regarding the value of that

property. After these briefs were filed, Plaintiff sought admission of Susanne Ballantyne’s

testimony about the value of the interest in the Fourth property and her notes of a third-party

offer for the purpose of establishing market value. Even though their supplemental briefing

was directed at Don Ballantyne’s testimony, the parties represent – and the Court agrees –

that this briefing is sufficient to address all issues before the Court. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Susanne Ballantyne’s Testimony

“An owner, because of his ownership, is presumed to have knowledge of the property

and may testify as to its value.” United States v. 10,031.98 Acres of Land, 850 F.2d 634,

636 (10th Cir. 1988). In line with this presumption, it is proper for “the owner or officer of a

business to testify to the value or projected profits of the business, without the necessity of

qualifying the witness as an accountant, appraiser, or similar expert.” FRE 701 Advisory

Notes to the 2000 Amendments; see also Stoebner Holdings, Inc. v. Automobili Lamborghini

S.P.A., No. 06-cv-00446, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88225, at *6-9 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2007)

(collecting authority for the proposition that “the owner or officer of a business may testify as

to the value or profits of a business” as a lay witness under FRE 701). “Such opinion

testimony is admitted not because of experience, training or specialized knowledge within

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

the realm of an expert, but because of the particularized knowledge that the witness has by

virtue of his or her position in the business.” FRE 701 Advisory Notes to the 2000

Amendments.

Defendant does not challenge the existence of this rule, but rather argues that it

cannot be relied upon here as evidence of value of the Fourth interest because (1) Plaintiff

failed to designate Ms. Ballantyne under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) as a witness offering

testimony under FRE 702; and (2) Ms. Ballantyne’s valuation is based on inadmissible

evidence. (Opp. at 3-5) Neither argument is persuasive. 

Defendant’s position that Ms. Ballantyne’s testimony is inadmissible because she was

not designated as an expert rests on the assertion that “even though landowners are

permitted to testify concerning land values generally, that testimony is considered to be

provided under FRE 702.” (Opp. at 3) Defendant relies on a single case for this proposition,

Tamen v. Alhambra World Inv., 22 F.3d 199 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the Ninth Circuit in

Tamen held only that the district court did not err in qualifying a landowner as an expert

witness to testify as to property value. Id. at 206. This holding is unremarkable given that

the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Evidence contemplates that an owner’s

testimony regarding value may be admitted under either FRE 701 or 702. Compare FRE 701

Advisory Notes to the 2000 Amendments (discussed above) with FRE 702 Advisory Notes

1972 Proposed Rules (“[W]ithin the scope of the rule are . . . landowners testifying to land

values.”). Absent authority that FRE 702 is the exclusive means to admit such testimony,

the Court holds that Plaintiff need not designate Ms. Ballantyne under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2)(A) for her to offer testimony regarding the value of her interest in Fourth. See

Servicios Aereos Del Centro S.A. De C.V. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 03-cv-1993, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 67691, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 23, 2006) (allowing Executive President of company that

owns aircraft to present lay testimony as to value of jet engines under FRE 701 without being

disclosed as an expert to present testimony under FRE 702).

Defendant’s second argument presents a closer question. Ms. Ballantyne testified

that she based her valuation of the Fourth interest in large part on Don Ballantyne’s advice

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Allowing such testimony is especially appropriate where – as here – the witness

relying on hearsay has “substantial personal familiarity with the property.” Robinson v. Watts

Detective Agency, Inc., 685 F.2d at 739. The Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust had been the

sole owner of the Fourth property interest since May 1988, and it was owned by Susanne

Ballantyne, individually, before that date. 

4 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

and an unaccepted offer by a third-party – neither of which is admissible for the purpose of

establishing value for the reasons set forth below. Although Defendant cites non-binding

case law for the proposition that a lay owner testifying as to value cannot offer testimony

based on inadmissible hearsay, see, e.g., Cunningham v. Masterwear Corp., 569 F.3d 673,

676 (7th Cir. 2009) (owner cannot “merely repeat another person’s valuation”), the Court

finds persuasive contrary case law holding that a lay owner can “base his value opinion on

the second-hand information” and hearsay. Hornick v. Boyce, 280 Fed. Appx. 770, 774 (10th

Cir. 2008); see also Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, Inc., 685 F.2d 729, 739 (1st Cir.

1982) (owner allowed to give estimate of property value based in part on hearsay). Speaking

to advisors and other third-parties is “a common and reliable way” for an owner to measure

value of her property. Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, Inc., 685 F.2d 729, 739 (1st Cir.

1982). Excluding testimony about such conversations on hearsay grounds would make the

rule allowing an owner to present lay opinion on value applicable in only limited

circumstances. Therefore, Ms. Ballantyne’s testimony about how she reached a valuation

of the Fourth interest is admissible.1

 The Court will scrutinize the basis of this valuation when

evaluating the probative worth of her testimony. C.f. 10,031.98 Acres of Land, 850 F.2d at

636-637 (allowing lay landowner’s value testimony, but acknowledging that this valuation

may have no probative worth).

B. Don Ballantyne’s Testimony And Valuation Notes

Plaintiff argues that “Don Ballantyne’s lay opinion as to the value of Property is

admissible as he is the spouse of Susanne C. Ballantyne, who previously owned the

Property through the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust (of which Don Ballantyne was an

advisor).” (Mem. at 2) Plaintiff does not contend that Don Ballantyne was acting as an

owner, officer, director, employee, or shareholder of an entity involved in the three

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Although Don Ballantyne is an officer of Hemet C’s general partner, Snow Valley,

Plaintiff does not assert that Mr. Ballantyne was acting on behalf of Hemet C when he

provided value calculations for the transactions where Hemet C purchased limited

partnership units from Fourth and the Susanne C. Ballantyne Trust. Mr. Ballantyne testified

that he was acting “from the Fourth Investment point of view” with respect to the former

transaction. With respect to the latter, because Plaintiff did not brief the issue as to whether

a purchaser’s lay opinion can be admissible to prove value, the Court assumes that Don

Ballantyne again was acting in his capacity as advisor to the Susanne C. Ballantyne trust.

3

 As correctly pointed out by Defendant, the Court applies Federal Rules of Evidence

to resolve this issue. See Downeast Ventures, LTD. v. Wash. County, 450 F. Supp. 2d 106,

109 (D. Me. 2006).

5 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

transactions when he performed valuations of the 12.5% interest in the Fourth property,2 and

Plaintiff does not cite (and additional research did not uncover) any federal case law where

an advisor or spouse is permitted to offer lay opinion as to value. C.f. Servicios Aereos, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67691, at *5 (“Lay testimony from [consultant and former long-term

employee] would not fall within the ambit of those authorities which allow lay opinion

testimony about the value of property on the basis of the owner’s familiarity with the value

of his own property.”). 

Instead, Plaintiff relies on California Evidence Code section 813(a)(2) for the

proposition that “the spouse of the owner of the property or property interest being valued”

may provide opinion testimony as to value. (Mot. at 4-5) Even if the Court was to look to

State evidentiary law as persuasive authority,3

 the provision cited by Plaintiff would not apply

to Mr. Ballantyne. The 1980 Law Revision Commission Comments to Cal Evid Code § 813

explain that this rule was amended to “make clear that either spouse may testify as to the

value of community property since both spouses are the owners.” Plaintiff does not contend

that the interest in the Fourth property was ever held as community property or that Mr.

Ballantyne was a co-owner. 

Absent a showing that Mr. Ballantyne held particularized knowledge of the business

of Fourth that would place him in an analogous position to an owner, officer, director,

employee, or shareholder, Plaintiff cannot take advantage of the common law rule that allows

an owner of a business to testify as to value. Plaintiff offers no alternative basis for

admission of Mr. Ballantyne’s testimony and hand-written valuation notes for the purpose of

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 As noted in the Court’s order on summary judgment motions, there is no binding

California authority identifying the factors to be used in determining nominee status. [See

dock. #98] Accordingly, “it is the task of the district court to do its best to predict how the

California Supreme Court would likely resolve [this issue].” Adam v. United States, No.

07-56358, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21375, at *4 n.1 (9th Cir. October 15, 2010). To do so, the

Court looks to such authorities as “intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from

other jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, and restatements.” Id. (quoting Eichacker v. Paul

Revere Life Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2004)).

6 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

determining value of the Fourth interest, and therefore, the Court denies their admission for

this purpose.

C. Third-Party Offer

It is long and well-settled that an unaccepted offer to buy is inadmissible to establish

market value. See Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341, 348-49 (1903); 10,031.98 Acres

of Land, 850 F.2d at 637. Therefore, Ms. Ballantyne’s hand-written notes documenting a

telephone conversation with a third-party who offered to buy one-half of the Susan C.

Ballantyne Trust’s interest in the Fourth property cannot be admitted for this purpose.

However, this document is admissible as circumstantial evidence of Ms. Ballantyne belief

that consideration in the transaction between her Trust and Fourth was adequate. 

The Court will fully detail its approach to determining nominee status in its Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law after the trial concludes, but now holds that intent of the

Ballantynes is one of the factors relevant to this analysis. See U.S. v. Beretta, No. C

07-02930, 2008 WL 4862509, *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2008) (“The factors relevant to

determination of nominee status are essentially the same as those used to determine

fraudulent intent. . . .”); Stephanie Hoffer, et al., To Pay or Delay: The Nominee's Dilemma

Under Collection Due Process, 82 TUL. L. REV. 781, 818 (2008) (“In both nominee and

fraudulent conveyance situations, a delinquent taxpayer has transferred property to a third

party in order to evade the [Internal Revenue] Service’s collection action.”); United States v.

Carter, No. 08cv1633, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52732, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (finding of

nominee status where “the purported transfer was made to avoid tax liabilities from earlier

tax years”).4

 A belief that there was adequate consideration for the transfer would be

relevant to whether the transaction was for a legitimate purpose. As before, the Court will

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 08cv110-BTM (BLM)

analyze the probative value of this evidence in light of all circumstances surrounding this

transfer.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to admit lay opinion testimony as to property value is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part. Susanne Ballantyne’s testimony is admissible for the purpose of

determining market value. Don Ballantyne’s testimony, handwritten notes, and notes

documenting a third-party offer to buy half of the Ballantynes' interest in Fourth are not

admissible for this purpose. However, as factors used in Ms. Ballantyne's analysis, she may

testify about the substance of her conversations with Don Ballantyne and about the thirdparty offer. Notes documenting this offer are also admissible for the purpose of providing

evidence of Ms. Ballantynes’ intent in transferring her interest in the Fourth property.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00110-BTM-BLM Document 137 Filed 01/21/11 Page 7 of 7