Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Couch Potato]

Kenneth,

The core of my post was that I had personally changed my report in ways that I could not document or know, or understand.

A streaky printer at the client's end is not a result of something I personally did to my report as an assignment condition.

===

My point is that is it enough to ask for proof that any USPAP violations have occured in the past?

Or is it equally important to ask if the appraiser knows before transmission that no USPAP violations are imbedded in the report.

Most appraisers do not document or know, or understand what they send the client when they email a PDF. At some point in time one must exercise trust that software is doing what it appears to do and claims to do. It is unreasonable to hold an appraiser accountable for all the various manipulations that are possible with an appraisal report.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Kenneth and Danny,

Again, I am not talking about equipment malfunction and I am not talking about universally available software than can be tested by me prior to my making use of it.

I am talking about allowing a party who has an interest in the transaction to require that I personally and purposely add changes to my report that I am "blind" to in regards to their functionality.

And my point is not that I think every appraiser should be "imbedded object gurus", only those who agree to personally and purposely imbed them in their own reports at the instruction of the client.

 

[Ken B]

Marcia, it has been my general impression that you are a rational and thoughtful person. I have to wonder if you have thought out the issue of "imbedded objects" adequately.

"Unintended consequences"

Punish an appraiser because they cannot produce a printed copy of an electronically delivered report created using a software platform which does not permit printing, although the true copy of what is delivered is retained in an electronic file which can be produced by the appraiser and retrieved for viewing.

Punish an appraiser because they deliver a report with software embedded code which they cannot duplicate in their printed copy.

Punish an appraiser because they cannot provide a true copy of a report faxed to a client with imbedded streaks from their dirty fax machine which they cannot duplicate in their printed copy.

The witch hunt is on.

 

[Mr Rex]

Most appraisers do not document or know, or understand what they send the client when they email a PDF. At some point in time one must exercise trust that software is doing what it appears to do and claims to do. It is unreasonable to hold an appraiser accountable for all the various manipulations that are possible with an appraisal report.

The real question is where can you place that disclaimer in the report so that it doesn't go missing when the report is converted?

 

[Conservative in Virginia]

I found it a little peculiar that CofV reputedly relayed a conversation he/she was having with someone else, but found it necessary to use a term which has little meaning due to a lack of a better word. Why not use the words reportedly stated by the other party?

... I was summarizing the jist of the conversation Kenneth...this person indicated that the data was reformated to an output (he says) the lenders want to see... I have never seen one, can only imagine and I imagined in my own little crazy world this product would look like a 'mish mash' of the URAR I painstakenly put together. It may come across with all the numbers and boxes checked BUT like an edited video tape, is it presenting everything I felt was necessary to explain? If we are supposed to be the eyes and (well maybe nose) of the lender.... how can that happen with computer interferance.

OH and I did ask him, 'are the lenders making loans on this mish mash (my word)... and his answer was.............. but of course!

 

[DWiley]

OH and I did ask him, 'are the lenders making loans on this mish mash (my word)... and his answer was.............. but of course!

So, on the one hand you have characterized this person as a "phone chimp," but on the other hand you trust what he/she says about the lenders underwriting policies.



As I said before, the lender receives the entire report - not just the "mish mash"

 

[TJSum]

... I was summarizing the jist of the conversation Kenneth...this person indicated that the data was reformated to an output (he says) the lenders want to see... I have never seen one, can only imagine and I imagined in my own little crazy world this product would look like a 'mish mash' of the URAR I painstakenly put together. It may come across with all the numbers and boxes checked BUT like an edited video tape, is it presenting everything I felt was necessary to explain? If we are supposed to be the eyes and (well maybe nose) of the lender.... how can that happen with computer interferance.

OH and I did ask him, 'are the lenders making loans on this mish mash (my word)... and his answer was.............. but of course!

Next question even though the first one about signatures is still standing?

The conversion program removes some comments off of the URAR and places them on an Addendum page. Moved comments might include items like deferred maintenance. Will this "mish mash" summary pick up these comments which were moved to a several page long addendum, or will the computer just consider them background noise when populating this new mish mash summary to send to the lender?

 

[TJSum]

So, on the one hand you have characterized this person as a "phone chimp," but on the other hand you trust what he/she says about the lenders underwriting policies.



As I said before, the lender receives the entire report - not just the "mish mash"

I agree with DWiley on this one. It leaves open way too many problems like the ones I have brought up. Not picking on you C of V, actually picking on the phone chimp. If the chimp is right, things are much worse than we imagined...

 

[DWiley]

Will this "mish mash" summary pick up these comments which were moved to a several page long addendum, or will the computer just consider them background noise when populating this new mish mash summary to send to the lender?

This one I know the answer to - it depends on the template applied in the viewer.

When the XML file is viewed a template is applied as part of whatever viewer the user is using. One template shows everything on the form just as it looks in the preview screen on the appraiser's computer.

However, the user can apply a template that shows any part or combination of parts of the entire report. For example, a template could be used that shows only the subject address, the property description and the adjustment grid. All lenders have the viewer that shows the entire report. They can have other viewers programmed to meet their specific needs.

It is the electronic equivalent of taking a paper report, cutting it into pieces and gluing those pieces onto a peice of paper. The difference is that in the electronic world you don't have to destroy the original (or a copy of the original) to view it in a different arrangement. No matter what "mish mash" version the client looks at, the original report remains intact.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Marcia, it has been my general impression that you are a rational and thoughtful person. I have to wonder if you have thought out the issue of "imbedded objects" adequately.

"Unintended consequences"

Punish an appraiser because they cannot produce a printed copy of an electronically delivered report created using a software platform which does not permit printing, although the true copy of what is delivered is retained in an electronic file which can be produced by the appraiser and retrieved for viewing.

Punish an appraiser because they deliver a report with software embedded code which they cannot duplicate in their printed copy.

Punish an appraiser because they cannot provide a true copy of a report faxed to a client with imbedded streaks from their dirty fax machine which they cannot duplicate in their printed copy.

The witch hunt is on.

Hmmm, I never said any of that. The things that I did say would not lead to these unintended consequenses. That's a leap of logic.

It may be true that I have not considered everything I need to about these imbedded objects but I'll keep working on it.