This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice, nor a valuation in an individual case. Despite careful research, we assume no liability for accuracy, completeness, and timeliness. For specific questions, please consult a lawyer or tax advisor. Older content may be outdated due to changes in legislation or case law.
In the so-called order for evidence, the court formulates the specific evidentiary question on which the valuer is to give an opinion, for example the amount of the market value as of a certain valuation date.
The parties are usually given the opportunity to comment on the proposed valuer and, if there are well-founded doubts as to their impartiality, to file a motion for recusal.
The costs of the court-appointed valuer are initially borne by the losing party, or are apportioned according to the distribution key set out in the cost order.
Often the parties themselves already propose suitable valuers; however, the court is not bound by these proposals and may also appoint an expert known to it on its own initiative.
A motion for recusal must always cite concrete, objectively verifiable grounds for doubting impartiality – mere dissatisfaction with an anticipated result is not sufficient.