USPAP Minimum requirement to Inspect

[23Degrees]

Do incompetent or fraudulent appraisers generally advertize in public that they regularly practice any other offenses as well?

No one admits to it on this board so it doesn't happen?

Stop it!

And I never said anyone on this board did any such thing.

Sorry but I do not understand this response at all. I'm trying to deduce where I accused you of saying anything.

 

[23Degrees]

Are you saying that it's impossible to complete a credible appraisal of a residence without an interior inspection? If so, that would support this statement:

Not at all. I am on record indicating exactly the opposite. My only point was that just because something is not directly indicated in USPAP does not mean one could not end up being in violation of USPAP if it were not included as part of the SOW.

My post was referring to the posters that have come on in the past indicating that "USPAP" does not require something, and completely ignoring that the SOW required it via the forms or via assignment conditions.

 

[mark hurlock]

Sorry but I do not understand this response at all. I'm trying to deduce where I accused you of saying anything.

So now it's my fault that you inadequately communicated whatever you point was?

 

[23Degrees]

So now it's my fault that you inadequately communicated whatever you point was?

Nope not your fault. I'll just stack it up to another failed attempt at some light hearted humor. I was trying to back up the need for having this discussion in the first place but it looks like my wording was not as crystal clear as it should have been. Oh well.

 

[mark hurlock]

Not at all. I am on record indicating exactly the opposite. My only point was that just because something is not directly indicated in USPAP does not mean one could not end up being in violation of USPAP if it were not included as part of the SOW.

My post was referring to the posters that have come on in the past indicating that "USPAP" does not require something, and completely ignoring that the SOW required it via the forms or via assignment conditions.

Now that I understood and think we are in agreement. I think.

 

[Michigan CG]

Is the scope of work rule not part of USPAP?

Exactly what point are you trying to make? For my current assignment I don't have to inspect. You are not only beating a dead horse you are chopping it in to one-inch pieces.

 

[KD247]

... You are not only beating a dead horse you are chopping it in to one-inch pieces.

And then holding up each individual piece and proclaiming, "This is not a horse and I defy anyone to prove me wrong."

 

[alex gilbert]

Exactly what point are you trying to make? For my current assignment I don't have to inspect. You are not only beating a dead horse you are chopping it in to one-inch pieces.

Thread winner.

 

[mark hurlock]

Exactly what point are you trying to make? For my current assignment I don't have to inspect. You are not only beating a dead horse you are chopping it in to one-inch pieces.

I didn't care about your current assignment when you mentioned it the first time. Do you think anything changed between then and now or do you just like beating a dead horse?

USPAP requires an inspection when the scope of work determines it to be necessary to develop credible results.

I am not sure what you don't understand.

 

[23Degrees]

Perhaps a question can determine which hole this horse gets buried in - or at least it could poke another stick at the hornet's nest:

Is it possible to be issued a legitimate citation of USPAP non-compliance where the only reason for this is the lack of an inspection? No engagement issues, no client communication issues, no disclosure issues in the reporting which would all arguably be handled at other points in the pipeline in terms of USPAP violations. Only that after the fact the board determined that the only way to produce credible results was via an inspection which was not done, even though the agreed upon SOW with the client did not indicate that it would be done, and you are now formally screwed.

If not then the argument stops right there.

If so then it might be difficult to state that USPAP compliance never has an inspection requirement. Just ask the guy that got sanctioned in this manner if he in fact exists.