Clayton and Martha West, as co-trustees of the Martha H. West Trust, bought a condominium from James and Joanne Ryan, after James Ryan had the property appraised by Market Value of Atlanta, Inc. Market Value and by Daniel Fries & Associates, Inc. Fries. The Wests brought this suit, claiming that James Ryan had fraudulently induced them to purchase the property. The Wests charge Market Value and Fries with professional negligence in grossly over-inflating the value of the property in their appraisals. In Case Number A03A1420, the Wests appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Market Value. In Case Number A03A1421, the Wests appeal the grant of summary judgment to Fries. Under the authority of Robert & Co. Assoc. v. Rhodes-Haverty Partnership ,1 we affirm in both cases. Clayton West and James Ryan had been business partners. In consideration of West’s payment of partnership debts, Ryan gave West a $120,000 second mortgage interest on a condominium known as 201 Dunwoody Chase in Atlanta. Ryan later agreed to let West purchase the condominium based on its fair market value as determined by the lower of two appraisals to be performed on the property.
Ryan obtained the appraisals from Market Value and Fries. It is undisputed that Ryan first contacted Market Value and said he was thinking about selling the condominium and wanted to “get an idea of a possible sale price for his property if he decided to sell it.” According to Fries, Ryan requested it to perform an appraisal “because he was considering selling the property and desired information regarding its fair market value.” But the Wests presented evidence that Ryan’s attorney also contacted Fries and told the company that the appraisal was going to be used to determine the price at which the property would be sold. It is undisputed that neither Market Value nor Fries was informed that Ryan was actually in the process of selling the condominium to the Wests or anyone else. Market Value and Fries appraised the property at $260,000 and $275,000, respectively. Each appraisal report contained a provision requiring the appraiser to give its prior written consent before Ryan could distribute the report including conclusions about property value to anyone other than various specified entities, one of which was “the borrower’s i.e., Ryan’s mortgagee or its successors and assigns.”
