FWIT:
The NCAB determined that the below appraiser did not have "Geographic Competence".
So I have to ask. If this were you, and this review appraiser is not or could be reasonably thought of as not being geographically competent, and puts YOUR name, reputation, and feeding your family on the line, what would you do?
By the way, is it not the job of the NCAB to determine if the appraiser has geo-competence in the end. Turn them in and let them decide.
Volume is the name of the game for most review appraisers...not worth the papaer their on...just saying.
Jeffrey P. Johnson A6489 (Raleigh)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Following a hearing, the Board revoked Mr. Johnson’s residential certification effective April 1, 2010. There were four cases against Mr. Johnson. In the first case, Mr. Johnson appraised a property located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina effective December 22, 2008, finding a value of $143,000. The subject property is a one story brick and vinyl sided home with 1085 square feet and a full finished basement. Mr. Johnson reported the distance from the subject of Comparable 1 as 0.47 miles when it was actually 4.22 miles from the subject. He reported the distance from the subject of Comparable 3 as 0.46 miles when it was actually 1.74 miles from the subject. There were sales available in the subject subdivision that ranged from $36,875 to $89,250. Mr. Johnson overvalued the subject property. The subject property is approximately 82 miles from his primary business location. He was not a member of the Multiple Listing Service in this area at the time of the appraisal and was not geographically competent to perform this appraisal. In the second case, Mr. Johnson appraised a property located in High Point, North Carolina effective February 13, 2009, finding a value of $122,000. The subject property is a one story vinyl sided home with 1100 square feet on a slab foundation. Mr. Johnson reported the distance from the subject of Comparable 1 as 0.50 miles, Comparable 2 as 0.75 miles, and Comparable 3 as 0.52 miles. The actual distances were 2.67 miles for Comparable 1, 3.82 miles for Comparable 2, and 3.76 miles for Comparable 3. All of the photographs of the comparables were incorrect. There were more similar sales available in the subject’s immediate area that ranged from $98,500 to $116,000. Mr. Johnson overvalued the subject property. The subject property is approximately 68 miles from his primary business location. He was not a member of the Multiple Listing Service in this area at the time of the appraisal and was not geographically competent to perform this appraisal. In the third case, Mr. Johnson appraised a property located in Raleigh, North Carolina effective May 5, 2009, finding a value of $268,000. The subject property is a vinyl sided townhome with 2023 square feet, 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, and 2.5 baths. It is located in a country club neighborhood. Mr. Johnson reported the distance of the comparables from the subject as between 0.25 and 0.33 miles when they were actually approximately 1.25 miles from the subject. The photo of Comparable 1 is incorrect. There were other sales in the subject’s immediate area that ranged from $243,000 to $317,500. One sale of the same floor plan as the subject sold for $315,000 on September 17, 2008. There was no reason why neighborhood sales could not be used. Had they been used, the appraised value would have been higher. In the fourth case, Mr. Johnson appraised a property located in Durham, North Carolina effective January 7, 2009, finding a value of $260,000. The subject property is a one story vinyl sided home with 2737 square feet. The subject appears to be a manufactured or modular home, although the county tax records report the subject as being conventional [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]construction. This was not addressed in the report. The subject has 10.95 acres. Comparable 3 has 0.40 acres and is located in a residential subdivision comprised of similarly sized lots. This subdivision has several amenities such as a pool and tennis courts that were not mentioned in the appraisal report. In all of the above cases, Mr. Johnson was notified in writing, by email and by telephone calls that he needed to respond to the complaints and to send in the appraisals and work files. He was personally contacted by and met with an investigator for the Board and was told he needed to send in responses. Despite several assurances that he would do so, he never sent any documents to the Board. Although Mr. Johnson may have had personal issues during the period of time these appraisals were done and the complaints were filed, he continued to appraise, and there was no reason why he could not have responded to the complaints. Mr. Johnson had previously been disciplined by the Appraisal Board. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
