Accounting Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Lease Auditing Process

600 Cleveland owned a commercial office building located at 600 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, Florida 33601 from September 9, 2013, to April 1, 2024. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) and 600 Cleveland assumed a lease agreement originally entered into by other parties on December 1, 1986, and both were bound by the agreement. This lawsuit arises from purported violations of the parties’ lease agreement (“Lease”). BANA counterclaimed that 600 Cleveland overcharged BANA for its share of Common Area Maintenance (“CAM”) under the Lease.

600 Cleveland filed a motion to exclude the entire expert report of Tracy P. Chelepis (“Chelepis Report”) and to bar him from testifying at the upcoming bench trial. The Chelepis Report relates to an audit performed by Chelepis’ firm, which found that 600 Cleveland overcharged BANA for CAM fees under the Lease by $160,882.01.

Accounting Expert Witness

Tracy P. Chelepis holds a Bachelor of Science in accounting from the University of Kansas where he took multiple classes on auditing, a CPA license for which he attends 80 hours a year in continuing education, and a real estate license as both agent and broker for which he also attends mandatory continuing education.

Chelepis also worked as an accountant for a major accounting firm performing financial statement audits and then spent years as a construction accountant for AT&T.

Want to know more about the challenges Tracy Chelepis has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

600 Cleveland made three arguments: (1) Chelepis’ methodology is unreliable; (2) his opinion is ipse dixit; and (3) his testimony would not help the trier of fact.

Cleveland argued that Chelepis should be barred from testifying because “lease auditing” does not have “articulated industry standards,” “peer review processes,” or a “regulatory governing body to which his opinions can be tested.” Cleveland contended that Chelepis’ reliance on his knowledge and experience as a CPA, purportedly without further explanation, rendered his methodology unreliable.

BANA correctly identified that, for non-scientific expert testimony, there need not be articulated industry standards, peer review processes, or a regulatory governing body. Nor did the fact that Chelepis’ methodology required him to interpret terms in the lease to determine whether certain costs were properly included make his opinion inherently unreliable.

Chelepis’ deposition testimony also undermined 600 Cleveland’s argument that his opinion is ipse dixit. Chelepis explained at length the general process he used to audit leases. He then reviewed the lease’s provisions and amendments and explained how he interpreted and applied them to reach his opinion. Chelepis similarly explained his accounting calculations and his underlying reasonable assumptions.

The Court concluded that Chelepis’ testimony would be helpful in navigating the numerous financial records and reconciling them, using accounting principles, with the lease’s guidance for what could properly be charged as operating costs.

Held

The Court denied 600 Cleveland’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Tracy Chelepis.

Key Takeaway

The standards of scientific reliability, such as testability and peer review, do not apply to all forms of expert testimony and a district court may decide that non-scientific expert testimony is reliable based upon personal knowledge or experience.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	600 Cleveland, LLC V. Bank Of America, N.A.
Docket Number:	8:24cv1652
Court Name:	United States District Court, Florida Middle
Order Date:	January 23, 2026