When a valuation becomes disputed, it is rarely about nuances. It is about whether an existing report holds up — and what can take its place. For this situation there are three clearly distinguishable formats, which in practice are regularly confused.
Super-expert appraisal
The term is not defined by statute. What is meant is a further report obtained because an existing one is regarded as inadequate, contradictory or technically flawed. In civil proceedings the court may order a fresh assessment by a different expert under section 412 ZPO — for instance where the first report proceeds from incorrect underlying facts, is methodologically flawed, or the expert's competence appears doubtful.
Outside proceedings, parties commission a review appraisal to judge before litigating whether the dispute is worth pursuing. A sober expectation matters here: a review appraisal does not set the first one aside. It stands alongside it — and persuades only if it names the weaknesses of the first specifically rather than merely asserting them.
Arbitral appraisal under section 317 BGB
The arbitral appraisal is something else: here the parties determine in advance that a third party will establish the value with binding effect. The legal basis is sections 317 to 319 BGB. The determination binds both sides and can be challenged only to a limited extent — under section 319(1) BGB, namely where it is manifestly inequitable. That threshold is set high.
The advantage lies in time and cost: an arbitral appraisal replaces years of litigation in many cases. The price is the binding effect. Anyone agreeing to it should formulate the question carefully — it cannot be altered afterwards. In detail on this, see the article Arbitral appraisals for property.
Party-appointed reports in court proceedings
In civil proceedings the court appoints the expert itself. A report commissioned by a party is not evidence but qualified party submission. That does not make it worthless: a methodologically sound party-appointed report can provide the basis for objections under section 411(4) ZPO and prompt the court to question the court-appointed expert or order a fresh assessment.
Challenging a report is subject to time limits
Objections to a court-appointed report must be raised within the period set by the court; late submissions may be rejected. Anyone wishing to challenge an expert for bias must likewise do so within the time limit under section 406(2) ZPO. The technical review should therefore begin early — not once the judgment is already in sight. Procedural questions belong in the hands of your legal representatives; I supply the valuation groundwork.
Which format fits when
Where the dispute has not yet reached court and both sides want it settled quickly, the arbitral appraisal is the most effective route. Where proceedings are already under way and the court-appointed report is in question, the route runs through reasoned objections — prepared technically by a party-appointed report. Where the point is merely to have another party's valuation reviewed, what often suffices is the Second opinion.
For courts, notaries and public authorities there is a dedicated section on appraisals for courts and public authorities.
Fee
The basis is the fee schedule for the market value report.
Where the work is commissioned by a court, remuneration follows the JVEG. A complete price overview can be found under the cost of an appraisal.
