UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

In re:

Chance & Anthem, LLC,

 Debtor.

 /

Case No.: 18-16248-MAM

Chapter 7

Robert C. Furr,

 Plaintiff.

Adv. Proc. No. 19-1298-MAM

v.

Jeffrey M. Siskind, et al.

 Defendants. 

 /

Jeffrey M. Siskind,

 Counter-Plaintiff. 

v.

Genovese, Joblove & Battista, P.A., et al.

 Counter-Defendants. 

 /

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2020.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 353 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 4
2

ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 

TESTIMONY OF ALAN R. BARBEE [ECF NO. 348]

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Amended Motion to Exclude 

Expert Testimony of Alan R. Barbee [ECF No. 348] (the “Motion”) filed by Jeffrey 

Siskind (“Siskind”). In the Motion, Siskind argues that the report (the “Report”) 

prepared by Alan R. Barbee (“Barbee”) underestimates the value of the abovecaptioned debtor (the “Debtor”). Siskind further contends that Barbee did not follow 

the “Standard of Value” parameters set forth in the Report, adopted an incorrect basis 

for valuation, improperly asserts that Debtor could not pay its ongoing obligations,

ignored several pertinent sales of interests, and incorporates incorrect factual

findings into the Report. Motion at ¶ 5-9. Siskind summarizes his arguments by 

stating that Barbee created a Report favoring the party who engaged him. 

In support of his contentions, Siskind requests that the Court either (a) permit 

the refutation of the Report through lay testimony or (b) extend the deadline for 

disclosing expert reports. 

The Court is familiar with the valuation process and is likewise aware that it 

is common for litigants to submit reports with differing valuations. It is equally 

common for litigants to take issue with appraisals offered into evidence by an 

opposing party, and pertinent valuations may vary widely. The Court will assess the 

probable accuracy and probative value of the Report and any competing reports 

submitted by other parties (including Siskind) as part of the normal evidentiary 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 353 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 4
3

process. Therefore, any differences in valuation and prospective issues with external 

factors are not cause for concern at this point.

With respect to Siskind’s request to extend deadlines for submission of 

evidence, the Court notes that all parties have been given an equal amount of time to 

prepare their evidentiary submissions, and all parties have been instructed to follow 

all relevant Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bankruptcy 

Rules, and Local Rules (collectively, the “Rules”).1 In addition, the pretrial order 

entered in this adversary proceeding (the “Pretrial Order”) (ECF No. 4), and the 

subsequent orders continuing the date of the pretrial conferences (ECF Nos. 59, 197, 

and 325), established clear deadlines that may only be modified through Court order. 

The Court has carefully monitored the progress of this Adversary Proceeding 

and has previously provided all parties with ample time to compile, produce, and 

prepare evidence for submission. No extensions will be granted to any party absent 

extraordinary circumstances. The Motion does not describe extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Therefore, the Court, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, ORDERS

AND ADJUDGES that 

1. The Motion is DENIED.

2. Any objections that any opposing party wishes to raise regarding the Report

are preserved for the evidentiary hearing or trial at which the Report is 

sought to be introduced into evidence. 

1 To the extent that Siskind seeks to refute expert testimony through the presentation of lay testimony, 

the Court refers Siskind to the Rules. 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 353 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 4
4

3. Siskind may refute the expert testimony in the Appraisal through the 

presentation of competent expert testimony so long as the expert opinion is 

disclosed in the manner and timeframes set forth in the Pretrial Order. 

###

Copy furnished to: 

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esq.

Mr. Siskind is directed to serve this order upon all interested parties and file a conforming 

certificate of service.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 353 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 4