Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Carnivore]

I suppose we could say that if an appraiser participated in a commercial database they might have a more defensible position if there was some legal dispute about outside datamining. However, my gut feeling is that if the data copyright issue would is resolved on a broad scale that might resolve some of these other issues at the same time.

My concerns about data mining(stealing) are not my focus at this time. That is a minor issue for me. I do have serious concerns about current risk. I need prima facia evidence of what I sent to the client. I dont have that right now in the form I want it to be in.

prima facia -Latin, On the first appearance.

 

[TJSum]

"As other have pointed out, a national database could be very valuable. The statement authorizing the appraisal report to be sent to a data service has been part of the Fannie Mae form for at least 15 years. I don't see why anyone who had read what they have been signing would be suprised that attempts at assembling big databases is ongoing." DWiley


We are not surprised, just aggravated by the insults to our intelligence when it is constantly denied. And the average Joe Blow appraiser did not create that statement authorizing data mining, we are just "forced", whoops I forgot, "free" to sign it.

There is a gigantic difference between a national "vault" and a national "database".

Mr. Hatch nails it again, we will just have to wait and see how the courts decide on this copywrite issue.

 

[Bearslide]

All appraisers could participate. AI members did get a bigger cut. If I recall correctly an AI member got 50% of whatever data he/she contributed could be sold for and a non-AI member got 40%.



As other have pointed out, a national database could be very valuable. The statement authorizing the appraisal report to be sent to a data service has been part of the Fannie Mae form for at least 15 years. I don't see why anyone who had read what they have been signing would be suprised that attempts at assembling big databases is ongoing.

Interesting how many appraisers never got that memo.

We have all known Fannie is complicit in many things - this is just one more.

As others have said, the datamining/copyright issue is a separate issue and a battle to be fought separate from the concept of conversions/alterations and true copies. The appraisal industry is being manipulated to a fare-thee-well. The question is - by whom? We all know to what end..........

 

[Fred]

As far as I can see, the burden of proof is not on me to guarantee that the postman won't attack my report with some whiteout prior to delivering my report across town via snail mail. Same with these electronic portals.

Did you see the sample language - if the appraiser knows the report might be change? Not even knows that it will, knows that it might. And not changed in substantive content, just changed. No one would be able to transmit a report in any form without someone being able to reasonably construe you were in violation of the reg. After all, you had to know the mailman might steam open the envelope.

 

[Bearslide]

Did you see the sample language - if the appraiser knows the report might be change? Not even knows that it will, knows that it might. And not changed in substantive content, just changed. No one would be able to transmit a report in any form without someone being able to reasonably construe you were in violation of the reg. After all, you had to know the mailman might steam open the envelope.

And I am quite sure the VA Board is smart enough to understand the language will have to be vetted very carefully. It was SAMPLE language and open to revision.

 

[Carnivore]

My point still remains:

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE - Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

From someone at Freddie Mac:

Altered Appraisal Reports and Stolen Signatures

There is no question that numerous cases of appraisal fraud involve altered reports and stolen signatures. It's sad that many victimized appraisers don't realize until it's too late, that it's their responsibility to protect their signature and reports in a secure manner. This accountability doesn't rest with AMCs or transfer to anyone else. If fraud occurs and an appraiser's negligence enabled the fraud, just like the fraudster, Freddie Mac holds the victimized appraiser accountable and we can place the appraiser on our "exclusionary list".

Just for further enlightenment, here are excerpts from Freddie Mac Guide:

Section 44.21(b) Electronic transmission of electronic appraisal and inspection reports (8/21/06). Note: The word "Seller" means the lender who sells the loan to Freddie Mac.

"The following are unacceptable electronic appraisal and inspection report practices and will constitute a breach of the Seller's warranty of the professional quality of the appraisal and inspection report:

• Failure of the appraiser to take reasonable precautions to protect his or her electronic signature from identity and signature theft, including granting a trainee, administrative personnel or other third party permission to use the appraiser's or supervisory appraiser's electronic signature

• Failure to maintain proper security controls to protect against alteration of the appraisal or inspection report or data used in connection with preparing the reports by someone other than the appraiser, or supervisory appraiser if applicable, ultimately responsible for the report

• Failure to securely store the electronic appraisal or inspection report, including all original photographs, maps and supporting documents, as originally reported by the appraiser

In the event the Seller becomes aware of the unauthorized or improper use of the appraiser's signature and a supervisory appraiser's signature if applicable, in connection with any electronic appraisal or inspection report, including photographs, or if the Seller suspects unauthorized alteration of any appraisal or inspection report, the Seller must notify Freddie Mac immediately.

Please wake up and see the full implications of not KNOWING what is happening to your appraisal reports! This is not just about data-mining and copyright violations. FNC and DWiley are telling you and others in regulations and law enforcement that YOU, the appraiser, are approving these conversions/alterations and this means you will be held responsible for whatever they do with your reports even if you cannot see or retrieve the version that was delivered to your lender client. IMO, this is the equivilent of being stabbed in the back multiple times and then thrown under the bus. I hope all that can find a way to attend this Virginia meeting will be there.

 

[DWiley]

You absolutely know better than to make such a statement and/or accusation.

My only "accusation" is that you have a conflict of interest in this matter - which is a fact, not an allegation. A party filing a lawsuit against someone is, by definition, an adversary.

What would have been the reaction on this forum if the entity that sued Pam had then led a "fact finding committee" looking into her activity? It seems many are willing to overlook the obvious conflict in this case because they support the outcome that your lawsuit seeks. I suppose that is human nature.

Because I am involved and have SOME knowledge do you think I should remove myself from the discussion.

I think you should participate. But given your pending litigation, it is, IMO, extremely inappropriate for you to hold the position as chair of this committee or to cast any formal vote as a board member.

Your lawsuit is prima facia evidence that you have predetermined views. While it is your right to express those views, I don't believe you can also sit in independent, impartial and objective judgment when you have millions of reasons to support a particular view. There is a reason that USPAP prohibits compensation contingent on the outcome of the analysis; such an arrangement can inspire bias.

The public gets to speak, even you if you choose to come. But do not imply the books are cooked...

It does not matter if the books are cooked - the appearance exists. I think the VA Board has put itself in a no-win situation. The blatant conflict of interest will cast a dark shadow over anything that is decided, and it will almost certainly be the grounds for appeal to higher authority if adverse action is taken.

If lenders' demands for a certain format are the root of evil that some claim, then surely we must next outlaw PDF format. In the period of time with the greatest mortgage fraud rates in history PDF is the format most have demanded.

One could say they have demanded PDFs because they are so easy to change, but I don't think that is really the case. Lenders have little need to fraudulently change reports when there are plenty of appraisers willing to commit the fraud for them.

I do sincerely hope the meeting is fruitful, and I appreciate the invitation to attend.

 

[DWiley]

FNC and DWiley are telling you and others in regulations and law enforcement that YOU, the appraiser, are approving these conversions/alterations

The only reason I am telling people that is because it is true .

I have asked before, but you never answered - have you ever seen a real live AIReady conversion? Or are you just imagining how it works?

When the report is converted it appears on the appraiser's screen, and the appraiser should look at it before sending it, just as they should look at a PDF before sending it. To say that anyone other than the appraiser is responsible for converting the file into AIReady format is just ignoring facts. And, in anticipation of the allegation that this is a recent change, it has always worked this way.

and this means you will be held responsible for whatever they do with your reports even if you cannot see or retrieve the version that was delivered to your lender client.

So, if a client changes my PDF, then I am responsible because I am the one who converted it to PDF? I don't think so.

Anyone who produces an AIReady report can retrieve a copy at will. A fact I demonstrated by posting a report from 2 years ago.

As for the passages from Freddie Mac, I agree with what they say. The "signatures" that most appraisers use offer no real security. The best protections against unathorized use of your signature and/or idenity theft are (1) avoid forms software that allows the user to create a signature file, and (2) buy and use a PKI based digital signature for all files, including AIReady files.

 

[Marcia Langley]

As far as I can see, the burden of proof is not on me to guarantee that the postman won't attack my report with some whiteout prior to delivering my report across town via snail mail. Same with these electronic portals.

George,

But this does not address the issue about changes made by the appraiser. You seem to be leaning towards the opinion that appraisers should not be held accountable for unknown objects that they, themselves place in their reports.

And maybe that is correct. But that opinion does not seem to be held by many of the major players in the industry. Mr. Olsen, for example. Or the ASB, so far.

All I'm saying is that everyone should be on the same page about this. There needs to be a governing policy.

Did you see the sample language - if the appraiser knows the report might be change? Not even knows that it will, knows that it might. And not changed in substantive content, just changed. No one would be able to transmit a report in any form without someone being able to reasonably construe you were in violation of the reg. After all, you had to know the mailman might steam open the envelope.

Steven,

I agree that any possible policy language will have to be very carefully written in order to accpmplish anything reasonable.

I still think we need a guideline regarding the end point of the appraisers' responsibility. It has become blurred.

It is not an easy problem and it will not be easy to write policy for it.

The status quo is that ASB's Q&A just says appraisers are responsible for what is "transmitted to the client." The boards are only holding the appraisers responsible for the file prior to "upload" to the conversion system.

FNC's Mr. Olson is saying appraisers are responsible for "after upload" but prior to transmission.

This disconnect between various entities has come to a head and now appraisers can't be sure what they are responsible for. It simply needs clarification.

IMO the policy language should focus on the appraiser's ability to do a WYSIWYG verification of what the client actually receives. There needs to be a clear demarcation between what the appraiser can verify and what he can't.

He can verify what his report "looks like" on his screen, in a PDF, or in a Snagit copy. Should that be the end of an appraiser's responsibility? Do you think that is the direction the ASB should take?

Would that be a suitable policy if XYZPort came up with an econo version of a conversion system required by clients to be implemented by the appraiser prior to transmission? Is the appraisers level of gullibility the only test necessary to determine his extent of responsibility?


=============



It may be that data mining somehow instigated the inquiry into this issue but it is a far back seat to the overall picture.