Ouch!
I am currently in the same scenario with the same client. They specifically want a retro on the 03/05 2055. They do not want it on a GP or 1996 2055. What are your thoughts on disclosing this in the appraisal. The whole uproar about contradicting the certifications is that it could lead to a misleading report. If its fully disclosed that these contradictions are there at the client's request and their request (engagement) even states to use the 03/05 2055, I do not see the liability.
I respect your post and questions. But you and our entire trade needs to push away from the table on this one. Let me ask you, what if your client demanded you violate USPAP so you handled that by fully disclosing it was your client's demand so that is why you did it? And you attempted to coin the violations to be only "contradictions?" .. I read your post and I hear echoes of years ago other posts asking if opining a value of specific real estate is ok outside of USPAP if the client puts on their request (engagement) that "
this is not a real estate appraisal."
What I am trying get you to accept is altering the buzz words doesn't alter USPAP or your states administrative rules, OR how your state board interpretates USPAP. I believe that the Oregon board has pretty much said if an appraiser signs a form with preprinted language in one location of that form that says one thing, and the appraiser drops back in the appraiser's addendum and contradicts what was said with something else, that the result is probably going to be a misleading appraisal report per USPAP.
Now then,
don't take my word for it.... CALL YOUR OWN BOARD!!!
Are they going to sue you for doing what they asked of you (WOW that’s a loaded question). This may come down to what the client wants is not what it needs. However, sometimes we have to give them what they want and just disclose everything. I am not just a form filler for hire, but not everything is absolute.
Yes, they will.. and yes it was a self-created loaded question... Glad you asked! ... Again, to be pointed here... why don't we just give an alcoholic a fifth of anything, because they want it, and just disclose what we did? This is about professional and social responsibility of our trade members, not about what outside parties want out of us.
As for the verifiable disinterested data source. They have provided a full 1004 appraisal with the same effective date. So technically the data source is from a fourth party disinterested reliable source provided by a interested 3rd party. The client supplied appraisal is believed to be credible because it was completed by a local peer appraiser (not necessarily my peer, but a professional all the same).
Again, CALL YOUR OWN BOARD ABOUT THIS!
I don't agree. That appraisal report did not come to you directly from the other appraiser. How do you know it has not been altered? .. More, you make assumptions regarding the validity of the data and source that if those assumptions turn out to be incorrect they do what? Do they affect your opinions, conclusions, and analyses? If they do adversely affect your stuff... per USPAP that is defined to be a what?
The above is NOT
your research.... It is somebody else's
and you would not know if any of it was verified at all, unless you verify it all over again. What are you doing? Including a review and stating you agree with the information? If not, how will you make any of that work due to the preprinted SOW on the 03/05 2055 without modifying the SOW?
The original appraiser is a reliable data source for the subject (unless data is found to the contrary), regardless of who supplied the appraisal.
Oh really?? Ok, explain to me why then a property owner cannot directly be the source of delivery of an appraisal report to a lender then? How come all the lenders have to have the reports sent directly from the appraisers to them exclusively and the reports cannot pass through the hands of a borrower first? Sorry, there is already industry precedence that you are incorrect.
I do not and have never used the homeowner as a data source for a 2055. However, if they provided me with a previous appraisal, i would use it and disclose the source as a dated appraisal provided by the homeowner/borrower.
See the above. My expectations would then be that you'd be placing the lender in violation of FIRREA doing that. By extension of vital information passing through the hands of the borrower.
Is there truly a right or wrong answer here? Sometimes I find myself getting lost in the endless unsubstantiated opinions in this forum. There ought to be a separate fiction and non-fiction section or a separate fact and conjecture/theory section. I think it comes back to the thought that we are given just enough rope to hang ourselves.
I believe that there are right and wrong answers. The confusion caused is by those that seek to water down everything, at every turn, so that they can justify whatever it is their clients want in order to take the easy way out and obtain more work. The confusion caused for this purpose is intentional. The sources of it is numerous, but they all have one thing in common, trying to justify one's actions in an attempt to satisfy clients in order to obtain work. All of them seek to get around USPAP and state administrative rules, not comply with them.
