Background
During Steve Pacheco’s divorce, the domestic relations court appointed William Both Kamin to appraise the marital home after the spouses could not agree on its value. Kamin reported that the home was worth $640,000 when the couple married and $1.035 million during the dissolution proceedings. The court accepted Kamin’s current-value figure over Pacheco’s testimony and used it in determining the wife’s share of the marital equity.
Pacheco later complained to Colorado regulators. Kamin entered a diversion agreement with the Board of Real Estate Appraisers and admitted violating appraisal laws in preparing the appraisal. Pacheco then sued Kamin for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The district court dismissed the complaint under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), concluding Kamin had quasi-judicial immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. A court-appointed appraiser who provided a neutral valuation and testimony to aid the domestic relations court performed a function intimately related and essential to judicial decision-making, the court held. Kamin was appointed because the parties disputed value, reported directly to the court, and was not acting as an independent examiner for either spouse.
The appraiser’s later admission of appraisal-law violations did not eliminate quasi-judicial immunity from civil damages claims. The court reasoned that immunity protects court appointees from personal liability that could deter them from accepting appointments or providing candid information. Pacheco could have used adversarial safeguards in the divorce case, including nominating a qualified expert, cross-examining Kamin, or presenting a rebuttal appraisal. The court also denied Kamin’s appellate-fee request because it did not adequately explain its legal and factual basis under C.A.R. 39.1.
Key Takeaways
- A neutral expert appointed by a court to assist its decision-making may receive absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
- Professional-disciplinary consequences for an erroneous appraisal do not necessarily create civil liability to a disappointed litigant.
- Arguments that the appraiser owed independent contractual duties were unpreserved because Pacheco did not raise them in the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Colorado’s functional approach to quasi-judicial immunity: the decisive question is whether the court appointee’s work was integral to the judicial process, not whether the work was allegedly negligent or violated professional rules. It distinguishes court-appointed neutral experts from experts retained by a party.