Court Opinion

ID: 9385551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 14:00:35.043783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.693850
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-11748    Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023   Page: 1 of 21

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 20-11748
                           ____________________

        CITYPLACE RETAIL, LLC,
        A Foreign Limited Liability Company,
                                                        Plaintiff-Counter
                                                    Defendant-Appellant,
        versus
        CSMC 2007-C1 SOUTH ROSEMARY, LLC,
        A Florida Limited Liability Company,

                                                              Defendant,

        WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
        As Trustee For The Registered Holders Of Credit
        Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.,
USCA11 Case: 20-11748      Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 2 of 21

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 20-11748

        Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
        Series 2007-C1,

                                                         Defendant-Counter
                                                         Claimant-Appellee.

                             ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-81689-RLR
                            ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM and LUCK, Circuit Judges. *
        LUCK, Circuit Judge:
               This case is about a secured loan agreement between City-
        Place Retail, LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., acting as the trustee
        for the registered holders of the underlying note. The amount of
        the loan that CityPlace had to repay at maturity depended on the
        appraised value of the property securing the loan. In September
        2018, CityPlace sent Wells Fargo notice of its intent to refinance
        the loan. But when Wells Fargo’s servicer failed to send CityPlace
        written notice of the name of its appraiser, CityPlace sued, arguing

        * This opinion is being entered by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec-
        tion 46(d).
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1     Date Filed: 04/07/2023    Page: 3 of 21

        20-11748              Opinion of the Court                       3

        that Wells Fargo failed to timely appoint an appraiser. Thus, City-
        Place contended that, under the loan agreement, its appraisal was
        conclusive and binding. Following a bench trial, the district court
        ruled for Wells Fargo. It found that Wells Fargo properly ap-
        pointed its appraiser before the appointment deadline, so City-
        Place’s appraisal wasn’t controlling. And the district court con-
        cluded that CityPlace’s appraisal violated the minimum standards
        required by the agreement. As a remedy for the violation, the dis-
        trict court struck CityPlace’s appraisal and ordered the parties to
        restart the appraisal process from scratch. After oral argument and
        careful review of the record and the briefs, we affirm.
         FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
               In 2007, CityPlace took out a $150 million loan secured by a
        twenty-acre commercial property in West Palm Beach, Florida. In
        2011, CityPlace and its lender entered into a loan modification
        agreement, which extended the loan’s maturity date to December
        11, 2018. At the same time, CityPlace and its lender amended the
        security agreement to securitize the loan as part of a pool of com-
        mercial real estate loans for which Wells Fargo served as trustee.
        The amended security agreement appointed Berkadia Commercial
        Mortgage, LLC as the loan servicer.
                        The Loan Modification Agreement
               The loan modification agreement is the crux of this appeal.
        It allowed CityPlace to refinance the loan at maturity (December
        11, 2018) on ninety days’ notice of its intent to refinance. If
USCA11 Case: 20-11748      Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 4 of 21

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 20-11748

        CityPlace refinanced, the amount it needed to repay (the so-called
        “[n]et [r]efinancing [p]roceeds”) was determined by the appraised
        value of the property at the time of repayment.
                Section 4.9(g) of the loan modification agreement provided
        a mechanism for determining the property’s appraised value. To
        refinance, CityPlace had to give Wells Fargo written notice before
        the new loan would close. The agreement gave each party ten
        business days from receipt of the notice to “appoint” an appraiser
        and fifteen business days from receipt of the notice to give written
        notice identifying their appraisers. Once an appraiser was “ap-
        point[ed],” the appraiser had to “deliver” its appraisal within thirty
        days after its “engagement.” The agreement also required City-
        Place to “use reasonable efforts” to provide Wells Fargo and its ap-
        praiser with any “requested information” within five business days
        of the request. And the agreement required appraisals to be per-
        formed “in accordance with the Uniform Standards of the Profes-
        sional Appraisal Practice [(USPAP)]” and “meet the minimum ap-
        praisal standards for national banks” established by the Comptrol-
        ler of the Currency under Title XI of the Financial Institutions Re-
        form, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA).
               If both parties timely “appoint[ed]” appraisers and the result-
        ing appraisals differed by more than five percent, a third appraiser
        would be selected to determine the final appraisal value. If either
        side failed to “appoint” an appraiser “within the required time pe-
        riod,” however, the other side’s appraisal would “be the only . . .
USCA11 Case: 20-11748      Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 5 of 21

        20-11748               Opinion of the Court                         5

        [a]ppraisal used to calculate the [n]et [r]efinancing [p]roceeds,” and
        that appraisal would be “conclusive and binding.”
                                  The Refinancing
               On September 7, 2018, CityPlace’s vice president provided
        written notice of CityPlace’s intent to refinance the loan to Kristie
        Alvelo, a vice president at Berkadia, Wells Fargo’s loan servicer.
        Berkadia acknowledged receipt, and Alvelo forwarded the notice
        to Berkadia’s client relations manager. But the manager didn’t re-
        alize the notice was a refinance notice and didn’t input the notice
        into Berkadia’s system. On September 12, CityPlace sent Wells
        Fargo and Berkadia notice it had appointed Cushman & Wakefield
        Regional, Inc. as its appraiser.
               On October 5, Berkadia sent CityPlace a letter detailing the
        conditions for Wells Fargo’s approval of the refinancing. The
        cover email said that once CityPlace countersigned the letter,
        Berkadia “will appoint” an appraiser. Then, on October 8, City-
        Place sent Wells Fargo a letter stating that Wells Fargo failed to
        appoint an appraiser within the time required by section 4.9(g)(i) of
        the loan modification agreement. CityPlace attached the October
        5 letter that, CityPlace said, showed Wells Fargo “had not ap-
        pointed” an appraiser. CityPlace explained that its position was
        that its appraisal would be binding “pursuant to [s]ection
        4.[9](g)(iv)” of the loan modification agreement.
               On October 11, Berkadia responded on Wells Fargo’s behalf,
        “refut[ing] [CityPlace’s] statement in the October 8 [l]etter that
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023    Page: 6 of 21

        6                      Opinion of the Court                20-11748

        [Wells Fargo] failed to appoint” an appraiser. The letter continued:
        “As you are aware from the various correspondences, interac-
        tions[,] and discussions with [Berkadia] over the course of Septem-
        ber of 2018, [Wells Fargo] identified CBRE” as its appraiser. Berka-
        dia explained that it “advised” CityPlace of CBRE’s appointment in
        connection with a related tax increment financing taking place
        around the same time. CityPlace and Berkadia exchanged several
        more letters about the appraisals and Wells Fargo’s selection of
        CBRE as its appraiser. CityPlace maintained that, under the loan
        modification agreement, its appraisal was “conclusive and binding”
        in determining the property’s appraisal value.
               Ultimately, the appraisals from Wells Fargo and CityPlace’s
        appraisers differed by more than five percent—Cushman, City-
        Place’s appraiser, valued the property at $120 million, and CBRE,
        Wells Fargo’s appraiser, valued it at $155 million—which would’ve
        triggered the loan modification agreement’s requirement to ap-
        point a third appraiser. Under the “waterfall” formula for net refi-
        nancing proceeds described in section 4.9(c) of the agreement, if
        CityPlace’s $120 million appraisal controlled, then CityPlace
        would’ve owed nothing. But, if Wells Fargo’s $155 million ap-
        praisal controlled, then CityPlace would’ve owed $10.3 million.
               The discrepancy in the two appraisals partly related to a re-
        zoning. In November 2018, after CityPlace had delivered its ap-
        praisal, West Palm Beach approved a rezoning that would allow a
        twenty-one story, mixed-use, multi-family apartment tower on a
        portion of the property. Although CityPlace knew the rezoning
USCA11 Case: 20-11748       Document: 59-1        Date Filed: 04/07/2023      Page: 7 of 21

        20-11748                 Opinion of the Court                            7

        had been pending, CityPlace never told Cushman about it or oth-
        erwise shared CityPlace’s development plans for the property. Be-
        cause Cushman was unaware of the imminent rezoning, it noted
        that, as of its appraisal, there were “[n]o” “[z]oning [c]hange[s]
        [p]ending” for the property. Wells Fargo’s appraiser, however,
        considered the rezoning in its appraisal, which raised the value of
        the property.
                                      The Lawsuit
               CityPlace sued Wells Fargo1 for specific performance and in-
        junctive relief, seeking a court order declaring that, under the loan
        modification agreement, Cushman’s appraisal must be used to de-
        termine the property’s value (and the corresponding amount that
        CityPlace had to repay). Wells Fargo answered and counter-
        claimed for a declaration that it had complied with the loan modi-
        fication agreement, that CityPlace’s appraisal was “invalid” be-
        cause CityPlace “concealed” information about the rezoning from
        its appraiser, and that CityPlace must restart the appraisal process
        by having Cushman prepare a new appraisal that considered the
        rezoning.
              The district court entered an agreed order allowing City-
        Place to proceed with the refinancing while the litigation

        1
          CityPlace technically sued CSMC 2007-C1 South Rosemary LLC, the loan
        originator. But, when Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, it ex-
        plained that CSMC was an improper party because CSMC assigned its rights
        in the loan to Wells Fargo in 2012. CSMC was dismissed as misjoined.
USCA11 Case: 20-11748        Document: 59-1         Date Filed: 04/07/2023        Page: 8 of 21

        8                         Opinion of the Court                      20-11748

        proceeded. The order had Related Companies, L.P., an entity af-
        filiated with CityPlace, guarantee CityPlace’s loan obligations.
                               Judgment for Wells Fargo
                After a nine-day bench trial, the district court denied City-
        Place’s declaratory relief claim, dismissed its remaining claims with
        prejudice, and entered judgment for Well Fargo. First, it found
        that CityPlace’s appraisal wasn’t conclusive and binding because
        Wells Fargo had appointed its appraiser within the required time
        period. The district court found that Wells Fargo had appointed
        CBRE as its “appraiser for the [p]roperty for all purposes” prior to
        receiving CityPlace’s notice of intent to refinance, so, when the no-
        tice was received, CBRE had “already been engaged.” Second, the
        district court concluded that CityPlace breached the loan modifica-
        tion agreement’s provision requiring that appraisals comply with
        FIRREA and USPAP because CityPlace’s appraisal didn’t consider
        the pending rezoning.2 As a remedy for violating the agreement,
        the district court struck CityPlace’s appraisal and directed the par-
        ties to restart the appraisal process with new appraisals that consid-
        ered the rezoning and used “an effective date” between September

        2
         The district court also entered judgment for Wells Fargo because CityPlace’s
        claim would result in a disproportionate, substantial forfeiture, and CityPlace
        violated its duty under the agreement to cooperate with Wells Fargo’s ap-
        praiser.
USCA11 Case: 20-11748          Document: 59-1         Date Filed: 04/07/2023          Page: 9 of 21

        20-11748                    Opinion of the Court                                 9

        7, 2018 (the date the refinance notice was given), and December 11,
        2018 (the refinancing closing date). CityPlace timely appealed. 3
                                STANDARD OF REVIEW
               Three standards of review apply to this appeal. First, we re-
        view the district court’s findings of fact, including determinations
        of the credibility of witnesses and weight of the evidence, for clear
        error. Sidman v. Travelers Cas. & Sur., 841 F.3d 1197, 1201 (11th
        Cir. 2016) (“[C]redibility of a witness is in the province of the fact-
        finder and this court will not ordinarily review the factfinder’s de-
        termination of credibility.”). That means the district court’s find-
        ings of fact must not be disturbed so long as they are supported by
        substantial evidence. Id. Second, we review the district court’s
        conclusions of law de novo. Id. Third, we review the district
        court’s choice of an equitable remedy for an abuse of discretion.

        3
          After oral argument, we remained uncertain whether we had subject matter
        jurisdiction, so we remanded to the district court “for the limited purpose of
        making findings about (a) the identity and citizenship of CityPlace’s members,
        and (b) whether Wells Fargo, as trustee, is the real party in interest.” See Un-
        derwriters at Lloyd’s v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1093 (11th Cir. 2010)
        (remanding to the district court to determine the parties’ citizenships). On
        remand, the district court concluded that: (1) Wells Fargo, as trustee, is the
        real party in interest; (2) Wells Fargo is a citizen of South Dakota; (3) CityPlace
        is a citizen of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New
        Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and the nations of Austria, the Brit-
        ish Virgin Islands, and Kuwait; and (4) “[t]here is no overlap in citizenship”
        between Wells Fargo and CityPlace so “diversity jurisdiction is proper.” We
        are now satisfied that we have subject matter jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023    Page: 10 of 21

        10                     Opinion of the Court                20-11748

        See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Wilshire Inv. Mgmt.
        Corp., 531 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008).
                                   DISCUSSION
               We break our discussion into three parts. First, we discuss
        whether CityPlace’s appraisal was conclusive and binding under
        section 4.9(g)(iv) of the loan modification agreement. Next, we
        consider whether CityPlace’s appraisal violated section 4.9(g)(v)’s
        requirement that appraisals comply with FIRREA and USPAP. Fi-
        nally, we review the district court’s remedy striking CityPlace’s ap-
        praisal and requiring that the appraisal process begin anew with ap-
        praisals that consider the rezoning.
             CityPlace’s Appraisal Was Not “Conclusive and Binding”
               Section 4.9(g)(i) of the loan modification agreement pro-
        vided that Wells Fargo “shall appoint a [q]ualified [a]ppraiser”
        “[w]ithin ten (10) [b]usiness [d]ays after [Wells Fargo]’s receipt of
        [CityPlace]’s written notice of an intended [r]efinance.” It also re-
        quired “[e]ach party” to “notify the other of the identity of its
        [q]ualified [a]ppraiser so engaged within fifteen (15) [b]usiness
        [d]ays after receipt of the notice regarding the intended
        [r]efinance.” Wells Fargo received CityPlace’s notice on Septem-
        ber 7, 2018, so it needed to appoint an appraiser by September 21
        and give CityPlace notice of its appointed appraiser by September
        28.
              If either side didn’t “appoint” an appraiser “within the re-
        quired time period,” section 4.9(g)(iv) of the agreement made the
USCA11 Case: 20-11748      Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023      Page: 11 of 21

        20-11748                Opinion of the Court                         11

        other side’s appraisal “conclusive and binding.” So, if Wells Fargo
        failed to timely appoint an appraiser, then CityPlace’s appraisal
        would “be the only . . . [a]ppraisal used to calculate the [n]et [r]efi-
        nancing [p]roceeds.” Specifically, if Wells Fargo didn’t appoint
        CBRE by September 21, 2018, then CityPlace’s appraisal—valuing
        the property at $120 million—controlled, and CityPlace owed
        nothing. The question for us, then, is whether the district court’s
        finding that Wells Fargo “appointed” CBRE as its appraiser “for all
        purposes” before September 21, 2018, was clearly erroneous.
               It wasn’t. At trial, Alvelo explained that Berkadia “often en-
        gage[d] CBRE.” She testified that Stuart Lieberman, the CBRE ap-
        praiser, had been appraising the CityPlace property for Berkadia
        “since 2016” and that Berkadia “typically” engaged the “same ap-
        praiser” for a given property. For that reason, she explained,
        Lieberman “was [Berkadia’s] appraiser of choice that [it] used to
        prepare the appraisal,” and there was no other appraiser considered
        for the CityPlace property.
               When asked if Berkadia had decided “who the appraiser
        would be in connection with the refinance” after it received City-
        Place’s refinance notice, Alvelo answered, “At that point,
        Mr. Lieberman was already engaged and working.” Alvelo ex-
        plained that, when the refinance notice “came in,” Lieberman was
        working to “provide an update” to his appraisal “for the purpose of
        the refinance.” And she testified that she “made th[e] decision” to
USCA11 Case: 20-11748         Document: 59-1         Date Filed: 04/07/2023         Page: 12 of 21

        12                         Opinion of the Court                        20-11748

        hire CBRE as Wells Fargo’s appraiser in “August of 2018.” 4 So,
        when Berkadia received the letter from CityPlace on October 9,
        2018, asserting Wells Fargo had failed to appoint an appraiser,
        Berkadia (acting on Wells Fargo’s behalf) had already “decided
        who would do the updated report”—“Lieberman from CBRE.”
                Alvelo’s account mirrored Lieberman’s testimony and
        sworn statement. When Lieberman was asked if he was “the only
        person who prepared appraisals on the CityPlace property,” he
        said, “Yes.” Lieberman testified that he viewed himself as “having
        been designated Berkadia’s appraiser for any valuation that Berka-
        dia need[ed] or desire[d] . . . for the property.” And Lieberman tes-
        tified that he’d made multiple prior appraisals of the CityPlace
        property in connection with the loan, along with an ongoing tax
        increment financing appraisal.
               In short, under section 4.9(g)(iv) of the loan modification
        agreement, an appraisal was “conclusive and binding” only if the
        other party failed to timely “appoint” an appraiser. Because sub-
        stantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that Wells

        4
          CityPlace characterizes this testimony as “self-serving” and asks us to dis-
        credit it. But assessing “[t]he credibility of a witness is in the province of the
        factfinder,” and we “will not ordinarily review a factfinder’s determination of
        credibility.” Sidman, 841 F.3d at 1201. Because we “must give due regard to
        the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility,” Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 52(a)(6), we generally will not second-guess the district court’s determina-
        tions of the witnesses’ credibility on clear error review.
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023    Page: 13 of 21

        20-11748               Opinion of the Court                       13

        Fargo’s appraiser was timely appointed, we agree that CityPlace’s
        appraisal wasn’t conclusive and binding.
               CityPlace has three main arguments for why its appraisal
        was conclusive and binding, but we are not convinced. First, City-
        Place points to other, contrary evidence in the record that shows
        Lieberman wasn’t timely appointed. The evidence CityPlace
        points to includes Berkadia’s October 5, 2018 email and Berkadia’s
        failure to sign an engagement letter until after the appointment
        deadline. But it wasn’t clearly erroneous for the district court to
        credit Alvelo and Lieberman’s consistent testimony over the con-
        trary evidence that CityPlace relies on. “[W]here there are two
        permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between
        them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Taylor v. Hudson Pulp & Pa-
        per Corp., 788 F.2d 1455, 1462 (11th Cir. 1986).
                Second, CityPlace contends that, because Wells Fargo didn’t
        give notice of its appointed appraiser within fifteen business days
        of the refinance notice, CityPlace had no duty to cooperate with
        Wells Fargo’s appraisal, and CityPlace’s appraisal controlled. We
        disagree. The loan modification agreement didn’t say that the fail-
        ure to give timely notice rendered CityPlace’s appraisal “conclusive
        and binding.” Rather, it said only that the failure to timely appoint
        an appraiser made an appraisal “conclusive and binding,” and the
        district court found—and substantial evidence supports—that
        Wells Fargo timely appointed its appraiser. Likewise, the loan
        modification agreement required CityPlace to cooperate with
        Wells Fargo’s appraiser irrespective of Wells Fargo’s compliance
USCA11 Case: 20-11748      Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 14 of 21

        14                      Opinion of the Court                 20-11748

        with the notice deadline. Section 4.9(g)(ii) said that, so long as
        Wells Fargo “timely appoint[ed]” its appraiser, CityPlace had to
        “use reasonable efforts to respond” to requests for information
        “within five (5) [b]usiness [d]ays following receipt of such re-
        quest[s].” This provision didn’t say that CityPlace’s duty to coop-
        erate turned on the receipt of a notice of appraiser appointment—
        it just required CityPlace to cooperate if an appraiser had in fact
        been appointed.
               Third, CityPlace argues that CBRE’s appraisal should be dis-
        regarded because it was “delivered” late. Section 4.9(g)(ii) of the
        agreement did provide that each appraiser “shall . . . deliver” its ap-
        praisal “within thirty (30) days after its engagement.” But nothing
        in the agreement disqualified an appraisal if it wasn’t delivered by
        that deadline. Section 4.9(g)(iv) said only that CityPlace’s appraisal
        would control if Wells Fargo didn’t “appoint” an appraiser “within
        the required time period.” Moreover, the district court found that
        CityPlace’s contractual breach substantially contributed to the de-
        layed delivery of Wells Fargo’s appraisal. Substantial evidence sup-
        ported this finding. For example, when CBRE asked CityPlace for
        information to complete its appraisal, CityPlace slow-walked
        CBRE’s requests, ignoring the agreement’s five-day response dead-
        line.
              Because the district court’s finding that Wells Fargo ap-
        pointed an appraiser by September 21, 2018, was not clearly erro-
        neous, the district court properly ruled that CityPlace’s appraisal
        was not “conclusive and binding” under section 4.9(g)(iv).
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 15 of 21

        20-11748               Opinion of the Court                        15

         CityPlace’s Appraisal Violated the Agreement by Not Complying
                    with the Applicable Professional Standards
               The district court also concluded that CityPlace’s appraisal
        breached section 4.9(g)(v) of the loan modification agreement be-
        cause it “did not consider the zoning modification sought by City-
        Place.” The district court found that CityPlace’s appraiser didn’t
        consider the pending rezoning because CityPlace intentionally
        didn’t tell him about it, which led to a violation of the agreement’s
        requirement that appraisals adhere to specific professional stand-
        ards.
               Section 4.9(g)(v) of the loan modification agreement pro-
        vided the requirements for an appraisal:
              [A]n appraisal of the [p]roperty [shall be] performed
              in accordance with the Uniform Standards of the Pro-
              fessional Appraisal Practice by a member of the Ap-
              praisal Institute selected by [Wells Fargo] or [City-
              Place] (or appointed pursuant to this [s]ection), as ap-
              plicable, which appraisal shall meet the minimum ap-
              praisal standards for national banks promulgated by
              the Comptroller of the Currency pursuant to Title XI
              of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
              Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended (FIRREA).

        Put simply, this provision required that appraisals comply with two
        standards: FIRREA and USPAP.
               The FIRREA standards advise that appraisers “should con-
        sider the real property’s . . . zoning as of the effective date of the
USCA11 Case: 20-11748        Document: 59-1         Date Filed: 04/07/2023        Page: 16 of 21

        16                         Opinion of the Court                      20-11748

        appraiser’s opinion of value.” Interagency Appraisal and Evalua-
        tion Guidelines, 75 Fed. Reg. 77,450, 77,459 (Dec. 10, 2010). The
        standards also direct appraisers to consider “market factors that af-
        fect [the property’s] market value” but caution against basing their
        evaluation on “unsupported assumptions, such as . . . the zoning
        will change.” Id. at 77,461 (emphasis added). Importantly, the
        FIRREA standards don’t direct appraisers to ignore supported as-
        sumptions, including very-likely-to-happen zoning changes that
        would dramatically affect the property’s value. That’s because an
        imminent and likely rezoning will affect a property’s value at the
        time of appraisal. It’s not speculative to ascribe present value to a
        pending rezoning which, for example, would upend the most val-
        uable use of the property. 5
               In fact, USPAP standards rule 1-3 requires appraisers to con-
        sider “reasonably probable modifications of . . . land use regula-
        tions.” The district court correctly found that this rule required
        consideration of the imminent CityPlace property rezoning be-
        cause it was a “reasonably probable modification of [the] land use
        regulations.”
              The trial evidence showed that CityPlace knew the rezoning
        was “reasonably probable.” CityPlace worked with and met city

        5
         CityPlace’s appraisal expert conceded this, testifying that “[i]f you have cur-
        rent data that supports the fact that buyers are paying a premium before some-
        thing occurs, that is—you are now taking the speculation away, you are not
        basing the value on a future [event], you are basing the value on existing com-
        parable data, current data.”
USCA11 Case: 20-11748        Document: 59-1        Date Filed: 04/07/2023        Page: 17 of 21

        20-11748                  Opinion of the Court                              17

        planning staff in August and September 2018 (while the property
        was being appraised), and internal CityPlace emails showed it
        knew: (1) the city would vote on the rezoning shortly; and (2) pre-
        liminary proceedings were going “favorabl[y].” The rezoning was
        going so favorably that ten days before CityPlace’s appraiser, Cush-
        man, finished its appraisal, the city’s housing and community de-
        velopment department told CityPlace it was “recommend[ing]”
        that the rezoning be approved. And CityPlace disclosed the plans
        for the apartment tower to its refinancing lender, suggesting that
        CityPlace expected the rezoning to occur. 6 Nevertheless, City-
        Place never told Cushman about this likely rezoning. So when
        Cushman submitted its appraisal on October 12, 2018, it didn’t in-
        dicate that any rezoning was pending.
                Given these facts, we agree with the district court that under
        USPAP standards rule 1-3 the rezoning was a “reasonably probable
        modification[]” of the property’s “land use regulations” that
        should’ve been considered in any appraisal. Because CityPlace
        failed to inform Cushman of the rezoning, its appraisal violated the
        standards, breaching section 4.9(g)(v) of the agreement.

        6
         The refinancing lender required an appraised value “over $135[] [million] for
        [CityPlace] to get [the] full proceeds” of the new loan, so CityPlace was moti-
        vated to seek a higher appraisal value than Cushman’s $120 million appraisal.
        The refinancing lender hired a third appraiser, and CityPlace readily provided
        him information about the redevelopment plans—information withheld from
        Cushman. The third appraiser’s draft appraisal valued the property at $163.6
        million, more than the CBRE and Cushman appraisals.
USCA11 Case: 20-11748        Document: 59-1        Date Filed: 04/07/2023        Page: 18 of 21

        18                        Opinion of the Court                     20-11748

                CityPlace makes two arguments for why its appraisal com-
        plied with section 4.9(g)(v), but we’re unpersuaded. First, City-
        Place argues that USPAP standards rule 1-3 didn’t apply because it
        wasn’t identified as a standard “that must be followed in a FIRREA
        appraisal.” To be sure, CityPlace’s appraisal expert testified that
        “FIRREA controls” over USPAP. But Wells Fargo’s appraisal ex-
        pert, whom the district court found “more credible,” testified from
        his experience that compliance with USPAP standards rule 1-3 is
        “necessary for credible results resulting in a market value opinion.”
        A FIRREA appraisal, Wells Fargo’s expert explained, is “a market
        value opinion,” so it’s “mandatory” that FIRREA appraisals con-
        sider “reasonably probable” rezonings. If there is a reasonably
        probable “modification of a change of land use,” the expert testi-
        fied, then an appraiser must “factor that in.” The district court was
        entitled to credit and rely on Wells Fargo’s expert to conclude that
        CityPlace’s appraisal should’ve considered the reasonably probable
        rezoning. 7 See Sidman, 841 F.3d at 1201.
               Second, CityPlace argues that, “[e]ven if” its appraiser
        should have considered the pending zoning change, the error
        didn’t “significantly affect” the appraisal’s final valuation. But the
        failure to even consider the reasonably probable rezoning meant

        7
         CityPlace argues that the district court erred by relying on expert testimony
        to interpret and apply professional appraisal standards. But we often rely on
        experts to share their experience and understanding of how professional stand-
        ards work in practice. See, e.g., Mandel v. Doe, 888 F.2d 783, 790 (11th Cir.
        1989) (relying on expert testimony to apply professional medical standards).
USCA11 Case: 20-11748         Document: 59-1          Date Filed: 04/07/2023   Page: 19 of 21

        20-11748                    Opinion of the Court                        19

        CityPlace’s appraisal violated the applicable professional standards.
        As the district court explained, CityPlace’s appraisal didn’t have to
        ultimately “assign value to the zoning change.” Rather, CityPlace’s
        appraisal only had to consider the pending rezoning and, “due to
        CityPlace’s withholding of information,” its appraiser “did not con-
        sider what [it] was required to consider.”
               Because CityPlace’s appraisal didn’t consider the reasonably
        probable zoning change, the district court didn’t err in concluding
        the appraisal violated the applicable professional standards, breach-
        ing the loan modification agreement.
             The District Court’s Remedy Was Not an Abuse of Discretion
               To remedy the violation of the loan modification agree-
        ment, the district court struck CityPlace’s appraisal and ordered
        CityPlace and Wells Fargo to restart the appraisal process and ob-
        tain new appraisals with an effective date between September 7,
        2018 (when the refinance notice was given), and December 11,
        2018 (the maturity date). CityPlace argues that the district court
        instead should’ve ordered it to obtain “a new FIRREA-compliant
        appraisal,” rather than having both parties “redo the entire ap-
        praisal process.”
                  But the district court’s remedy wasn’t an abuse of discretion.
        See Wilshire, 531 F.3d at 1343. Under New York law, 8 the district
        court was entitled to fashion an equitable remedy to place the

        8
            The parties agree New York law applies.
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023     Page: 20 of 21

        20                     Opinion of the Court                 20-11748

        parties in the position they would’ve been in had the contract been
        fully performed. See Lirosi v. Elkins, 453 N.Y.S.2d 718, 723 (N.Y.
        App. Div. 1982) (“[A] court of equity is not precluded from fashion-
        ing a suitable remedy . . . .”). The loan modification agreement
        didn’t specifically provide a remedy if one of the appraisals didn’t
        meet the FIRREA and USPAP standards. And Wells Fargo was en-
        titled to the opportunity to resubmit an appraisal because the dis-
        trict court found that it timely appointed its appraiser. The district
        court’s remedy—restarting the appraisal process—was appropriate
        because it gave both sides the opportunity to procure FIRREA- and
        USPAP-compliant appraisals under the loan modification agree-
        ment’s terms.
                CityPlace argues that, “even if the entire process were to be
        redone,” the new appraisals must be dated “no later than October
        24, 2018”—before the rezoning was approved. But, even if we
        agreed (we don’t), appraisals dated between September 7, 2018,
        and October 24, 2018, would still have to consider the then-reason-
        ably-probable rezoning. In any event, we disagree with CityPlace’s
        October 24, 2018 cutoff. The agreement doesn’t say that an ap-
        praisal needed to be “as of” October 24, 2018, or any other date. It
        required only that the appraisals be “deliver[ed]” within thirty days
        after an appraiser’s engagement and “as of a date not earlier than
        sixty (60) days prior to the closing of” the refinancing. An appraisal
        dated “as of” December 11, 2018, isn’t “earlier than sixty (60) days
        prior to the closing of” the refinancing. So, the district court’s
USCA11 Case: 20-11748     Document: 59-1      Date Filed: 04/07/2023    Page: 21 of 21

        20-11748               Opinion of the Court                       21

        remedy didn’t award Wells Fargo any greater rights than what it
        bargained for.
                                  CONCLUSION
               The district court didn’t reversibly err in finding that City-
        Place’s appraisal was not conclusive and binding, finding City-
        Place’s appraisal violated the agreement by not complying with the
        applicable professional standards, and requiring the parties to ob-
        tain new appraisals with an effective date between September 7,
        2018, and December 11, 2018.
              AFFIRMED.