# Christiansen v. Roddy

> California Court of Appeal · October 23, 1986 · 186 Cal. App. 3d 780

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731949

## Case

- **Full name:** DAVID CHRISTIANSEN Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WILLIS RODDY Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** October 23, 1986
- **Citations:** 186 Cal. App. 3d 780; 231 Cal. Rptr. 72; 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2191
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Vartabedian
- **Judges:** Vartabedian
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 3 Cal. 4th 370 (1992).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731949

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting Butler’s foreseeability standard as an “aberrant viewpoint”

## Opinion text

VARTABEDIAN, J. *
On October 30 and November 4,1986, respondents and appellant Roddy filed petitions for rehearing. The requests challenge this court’s determination that appellant Files, an appraiser, was not liable to respondents for negligent misrepresentation. In support thereof, petitioners for the first time cite International Mortgage Co. v. John P. Butler Accountancy Corp. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 806 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 218 ] and Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 ], Each is readily distinguishable from the instant case.
International essentially held that the certified public report of an independent auditor is necessarily intended for public consideration and reliance. (177 Cal.App.3d at pp. 817-820.) Additionally, International involved the physical delivery of the actual audited financial statements to the plaintiff. Plaintiff presumably relied not only on the representations but also on the qualifications of the auditor-accountant.
The Roberts court found that an attorney may be liable for negligence to a specific person intended to benefit by his performance. (57 Cal.App.3d at pp. 110-111.)
In the instant case, Files’s appraised value of $230,000 was placed on the sales brochure with no mention of Files, and no mention that the figure was arrived at by an assertedly qualified real estate appraiser. Not only did Files not know of the investors, but the investors likewise knew nothing of Files. While they relied on the appraised value which Files *792 negligently provided to Sierra and Roddy, the investors did not rely on it as being Files’s work product. On the other hand, regardless of where the investors thought that the $230,000 figure came from, they could reasonably have presumed that Sierra (and Roddy, the preparer of the loan brochure) had taken some steps to verify the figure. The investors’ reliance would have been on Sierra and implicitly on Roddy, but not on an appraiser whose contribution to the loan brochure was unknown to them.
Woolpert, Acting P. J., and Martin, J., concurred.
Petitions for a rehearing were denied November 14, 1986.
Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731949. Public record. Not legal advice.