Three days of hearings on my same complaints again. I have questions?

[Edward OConor]

Doesn't it bother anyone that "State of Wisconsin Jr. Attorney General entering one of my posting as an exhibit in my hearing yesterday."

Isn't this a private forum? Did the Attorney General have a subpoena to introduce a posting as evidence?

Ray, did you ask your attorney about it? How did they prove that you actually made the post?

Wayne, what is your opinion?

 

[Ray Miller]

Here is another one. I have a statement about the cost approach is not to be used for insurance purposes.

I may put this on a couple of pages.

I may also enter some other statements more the once, to be sure that the LO or lender see it.

According to two of the reviewers that is a very big no, no according to USPAP it makes the appraisal confusing and not consistent according to USPAP

 

[Caligirl]

Here is another one. I have a statement about the cost approach is not to be used for insurance purposes.

I may put this on a couple of pages.

I may also enter some other statements more the once, to be sure that the LO or lender see it.

According to two of the reviewers that is a very big no, no according to USPAP it makes the appraisal confusing and not consistent according to USPAP

Show us where....

RE: setting a precedent. All board reviewed appraisals, in all cases subsequent to yours, should be held to the same standards and same penalties, no? Information repeated in several places in all reports completed in the State of WI is a 'big no' according to USPAP?

 

[jay trotta]

Ray,

can't believe your still in that mess; at any rate, it appears that they have now brought forth 4-6 Experts, who have yet to prove a point.

Brief: the Cost Approach on housing over 5 years in age is not necessary, due to the limited ability to measure depreciation with accuracy. #2- It is and has been used soley for Insurance Purposes, as noted some years back on this forum and elswhere.

your just in a bee heive - good luck

 

[TJSum]

Here is another one. I have a statement about the cost approach is not to be used for insurance purposes.

I may put this on a couple of pages.

I may also enter some other statements more the once, to be sure that the LO or lender see it.

According to two of the reviewers that is a very big no, no according to USPAP it makes the appraisal confusing and not consistent according to USPAP

Many moons ago I took a USPAP class taught by a real estate attorney. He clearly stated the courts put as much weight on statements in our report as the appraiser does. When writing a report, if we hide some statement in the middle of a five page addendum, the court will not give it much thought. However, if we state something several times, in several different places, the more weight it will carry in the court room. Repeating a statement shows how important it is, not that we are trying to confuse.

 

[athome77]

All of this back and forth about whether or not the items cited comply with USPAP is really unsettling. It was written and is subject to evolution, but not at the peril of those who dare to practice our profession. Why not subpoena the members of the ASB who were in place at the time the supposed violations took place for a final determination of the proposed violations? This may sound extreme, but it appears as though that you are fighting against a vindictive opponent and should be afforded the opportunity to counter those who would deprive you of your livelihood.

From the ASB Website:

The ASB develops, interprets and amends the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The ASB is composed of six appraisers who are appointed for three year terms by the Board of Trustees of The Appraisal Foundation. Members of the ASB may serve two consecutive three year terms. Activities of the Board are directed by the Chair, who is appointed by the Board of Trustees for a one year term.


2003 Board Members
Danny K. Wiley - Chair
Lawrence E. Ofner - Vice Chair
Gregory J. Accetta
Carla G. Glass
Paula K. Konikoff
Dawn M. Molitor-Gennrich


2004 Board Members
Danny K. Wiley – Chair
Carla G. Glass – Vice Chair
Gregory J. Accetta
Paula K. Konikoff
Dawn M. Molitor-Gennrich
Lawrence E. Ofner


2005 Board Members
Carla G. Glass – Chair
Gregory J. Accetta – Vice Chair
James D. Cannon
Paula K. Konikoff
Dawn M. Molitor-Gennrich
Danny K. Wiley


2006 Board Members
Gregory J. Accetta – Chair
Paula K. Konikoff – Vice Chair
James D. Cannon
Carla G. Glass
Dawn M. Molitor-Gennrich
William J. Pastuszek, Jr.
Danny K. Wiley




2007 Board Members
Gregory J. Accetta – Chair
Noreen Dornenburg – Vice Chair
Paula K. Konikoff
Dawn M. Molitor-Gennrich
William J. Pastuszek
William Henry Riley


2008 Board Members
Sandra Guilfoil – Chair
Paula K. Konikoff – Vice Chair
Gregory J. Accetta
Richard L. Borges, II
Richard Knitter
William Henry Riley, III

 

[Louis Pompeo]

Sounds like you are toast.

 

[Ray Miller]

It sounds to me you were the victim of an Institutional Review Appraiser.

These were appraisers from off the street, that appraised in the area's where each of the subjects were.

I would ask if your attorney was present and why he/she did not interrupt the Review Appraiser using the in-correct USPAP and have his or her testimony either stricken or noted as utilizing the wrong source.

.

What better way to impeach the testimony of an expert then to ask every so often what rules were enforced at the time of the appraisal adn they were using? Then at the end of the cross examination ask to read the effective date of the rules they used and the effective date of the rules they should have used from the front of the USPAP bible. I think this established the fact that the review was very incompatent

He also stated a point of law and USPAP that you could not use MLS photo's in your reports. I even noted in the report that I used MLS photos.

He also stated I could not call the entire area I searched and pull comparables as the neighborhood. The subject was a rural property on acreage in Richland County, WI. I noted in my description of the neighborhood that it was Richland County as the comparables came from different locations in the county. In the comments section of the report I also noted why I selected the sales I did as comparables and why the comparalbes sales were beyound a mile or more from the subject Your comparables maybe any where from a few miles to over thirty miles away. By doing this it showed I was incompetent and failed one of the USPAP Standards for doing so.

He also noted that I had use some comparables that had a pond, a small stream, I did note this in the report. But he considered them to be on water as the pond and stream were near the houses. Where the subject had a small stream to the back of the property. He never gave any support as to the why I was wrong except to state I have violated one of the USPAP. In Wisconsin a lot of the rural properties have water, but not what I would consider lake front or river front, but they do have ponds and small streams. If they have certified Trout Streams then I will add additional value for that. But just to have stock ponds and wet and dry streams I find it hard to find market reaction for such acreages.

As well as stating a point of law that you could not use MLS photo's in your reports. I even noted in the report that I used MLS photos.

 

[Ray Miller]

Ray,

can't believe your still in that mess; at any rate, it appears that they have now brought forth 4-6 Experts, who have yet to prove a point.

your just in a bee heive - good luck

Many of these cases can go on for years and years. We have several FA members who have fought the good fight for a few years, some win, some lose. Many as still fighting.

We have one AF member here in Wisconsin who cut a deal to end the problems with the state Appraisal Board, thought they were done with any problems. The state Appraisal Board is back on their case again with new filing of new complaints from the same time period.


The state has the power of unlimited funding and time to do what they want and they will cost you, your time, money and business.

Yet board members who have been found by District Courts to do sloppy work and violate USPAP in case before their Court. As still setting on the State Appraisal Board, they are case workers against appraisers; they are called as experts for the state in their cases. Yet the state Appraisal Board never to my knowledge and research ever has gone after them for any type of violations.

Case in fact is my case the last reviewer we showed had several USPAP violations. All the state did was to hire new experts. Yet we have showed those appraisers conducted very sloppy reviews in my opinion by:

Saying I used the "Condo Forum" when it should have been a single family. Yet the subject was a "condo".

Not review the report as a 4.5 acre site but as a 1.5 acre site. Not reading the order or doing the research to see that in fact the order called for an appraisal on 4.5 acres and in fact the borrowers did own 4.5 acres.

That one reviewer didn't even know what USPAP Standards were in force at the time of the appraisal. And it appeared did not read or was not provided my entire report to read, therefore misstated facts that were in the report as not being in the report.

One appraisers saying A-Frames had the same marketability as standard ranch or two story homes had. Where market research shows different. That my use of similar A-Frames in the same recreational market or similar recreational markets was a violation of USPAP because I did not use the ranch style homes that were nearer the subject. That it appears on the average sold for 35% greater value then the A-Frames. He gave no supporting documentation as to why they should have been used other then the statement they were nearer to the subject.

The list can go on and on about what the experts stated and what is fact. Yet I am will to bet the State Appraisal Board will not act on this incompliancy and what I think would fall under violations of USPAP. Not only USPAP but the fact that their incompliancy can and has contributed to an appraiser loosing his license and source of income.

Any one want to place a wager that the state will act against their experts????? In this state it appears do as we say not as we who judge you do. From what I hear at many CE Classes this is common knowledge and many, many appraisers are in fear of the state appraisal board and for good reason.

 

[Fred]

110. Cost Approach and Fannie Mae Form 1004

Question:
The new Fannie Mae Form 1004 indicates that Fannie Mae does not require completion of the cost approach. Is it acceptable to simply omit the cost approach when using this appraisal report form?

Just a point of clarification. Ray says the allegation is that the absence of the CA violates law and USPAP - not that it violates something Fannie said.