Verifying Sales

[hastalavista]

That was not verification of anything, it was new information. If you wanted to verify if the new information was indeed accurate, the water utility would have been the place for verification.

Sounds like the call was to verify, and the call revealed new information.

I've experienced similar situations. Without the call to verify (and interview), no opportunity to learn new information.

I like speaking with agents. I don't ask them only questions about the property but other things like what they are currently seeing going on with the market.

I like to think I share this perspective.
Received a call today back from a broker on a deal that I've already completed.
The first thing he did was apologize for taking so long to call me back (he had a very good reason).
The next thing we did was to talk for about 5-minutes; a little about the original questions I had for him, a lot about the specific market our properties shared, and then a little about the general market. He was very helpful; I did learn some new information regarding the property (I had spoken to his partner); nothing that changed what I had already reported, but it sure improved my confidence level about what I did report.

My original efforts to reach out to him were not a waste (or unproductive) time spent.
Even though his information had no affect on the report already sent (it could have revealed something that would cause me to change my report.. but in this case it didn't), his information gave me a better insight into the market. That's something I can use for my next assignment.

 

[DTB]

Sounds like the call was to verify, and the call revealed new information.

I've experienced similar situations. Without the call to verify (and interview), no opportunity to learn new information.

Oh I agree Denis, but the thought that this is verification is nonsense. It's part of the trick bag of Fannie world.

Really what would your response be under deposition regarding verification? The only leg to stand on is the actions of your peers, maybe.

What we do as appraisers in this regard is certainly not verifying.

 

[ucbruin]

Sounds like the call was to verify, and the call revealed new information.

I did learn some new information regarding the property (I had spoken to his partner); nothing that changed what I had already reported, but it sure improved my confidence level about what I did report.

I know at this point I'm just nitpicking so forgive me. I just can't control my curiosity. You spoke to the agent's partner, verified, whatever you needed verified and completed the report. After submitting the report you learn some new information. Isn't this kind of an example that even when you speak to an agent you may not get the "correct" information? And I'm not trying to convince to stop calling them.

 

[hastalavista]

Really what would your response be under deposition regarding verification?

Haven't had that situation yet (although I've been deposed).

Recently, I did have a judge compare my appraisal to the opposing side's appraisal, because the opposing side made a motion to dismiss based on the claim that my characterization of the comparables (and, therefore, the adjustments) were not supported.
The judge ruled that between the two appraisals, mine was the more credible, and threw out the other side's appraisal instead.

What was the significant difference between the support for my characterization of the comparables vs. the other sides, you ask? :new_smile-l:
I contacted at least one market participant for each transaction and narrated what that party told me, and reconciled it with what other public or MLS data sources stated or indicated: I used this information to support my characterizations of condition, and based my adjustments on those characterizations.

The assignment was for a simple bankruptcy (I worked for the attorney who represented the 2nd lien holder).
But the agent-verification process I use for that assignment is the same I use for my mortgage assignments.

It doesn't take Solomon to rule that, all other things being equal, the report with the greater degree of confirmation/verification/fact-checking (call it what you will) will be considered superior to the report without that same level.

Others can choose to do what they think is best. I'll happily stick with my choice! :new_smile-l:

 

[hastalavista]

Sounds like the call was to verify, and the call revealed new information.

I did learn some new information regarding the property (I had spoken to his partner); nothing that changed what I had already reported, but it sure improved my confidence level about what I did report.

I know at this point I'm just nitpicking so forgive me. I just can't control my curiosity. You spoke to the agent's partner, verified, whatever you needed verified and completed the report. After submitting the report you learn some new information. Isn't this kind of an example that even when you speak to an agent you may not get the "correct" information? And I'm not trying to convince to stop calling them.

The new information I learned was about the market dynamics.
I also learned a few things about the tenants who vacated the space and took over the vacant space. It was interesting, and gave me a better insight into the market.

Both sets of information (as far as I can tell) were correct. "New" information doesn't mean contrary information. And supplemental information doesn't mean the original information discovered was inadequate.

Did I understand your question and answer it directly?

And, fear not: you are not dissuading me from making my calls. If anything, this thread has reinforced (for me) the soundness of the decision to make the calls! :new_smile-l:

 

[ucbruin]

Haven't had that situation yet (although I've been deposed).

Recently, I did have a judge compare my appraisal to the opposing side's appraisal, because the opposing side made a motion to dismiss based on the claim that my characterization of the comparables (and, therefore, the adjustments) were not supported.
The judge ruled that between the two appraisals, mine was the more credible, and threw out the other side's appraisal instead.

What was the significant difference between the support for my characterization of the comparables vs. the other sides, you ask? :new_smile-l:
I contacted at least one market participant for each transaction and narrated what that party told me, and reconciled it with what other public or MLS data sources stated or indicated: I used this information to support my characterizations of condition, and based my adjustments on those characterizations.

The assignment was for a simple bankruptcy (I worked for the attorney who represented the 2nd lien holder).
But the agent-verification process I use for that assignment is the same I use for my mortgage assignments.

It doesn't take Solomon to rule that, all other things being equal, the report with the greater degree of confirmation/verification/fact-checking (call it what you will) will be considered superior to the report without that same level.

Others can choose to do what they think is best. I'll happily stick with my choice! :new_smile-l:

A better prepared opposing attorney should have objected to the portion of your testimony regarding contacting "at least 1 participant" as hearsay. Unless of course each of the participants you spoke with were also witnesses who would "verify" your testimony. Or at the very least you had in your work files a notarized statement from the participants dated prior to you submitting the report. . Seriously, in court its about providing evidence to support a witness' testimony and if you couldn't provide any regarding your "participant" statement other than your memory or hand written notes in your file a good attorney should have been all over you.

 

[ucbruin]

The new information I learned was about the market dynamics.
I also learned a few things about the tenants who vacated the space and took over the vacant space. It was interesting, and gave me a better insight into the market.

Both sets of information (as far as I can tell) were correct. "New" information doesn't mean contrary information. And supplemental information doesn't mean the original information discovered was inadequate.

Did I understand your question and answer it directly?

And, fear not: you are not dissuading me from making my calls. If anything, this thread has reinforced (for me) the soundness of the decision to make the calls! :new_smile-l:

I appreciate your patience with my responses.

Again, curiosity. Why couldn't/didn't you get the "tenant" information and market dynamics from the agent's partner? Seems to me that the "partner" was either not forthcoming with you or didn't want to take the time to provide you information. Having gotten "new" information from the "original" agent, would you now find it difficult to or no longer feel comfortable speaking with the "partner" when you are trying to "verify"?

 

[hastalavista]

A better prepared opposing attorney should... .... Seriously, in court its about providing evidence to support a witness' testimony and if you couldn't provide any regarding your "participant" statement other than your memory or hand written notes in your file a good attorney should have been all over you.

If you say so.
The judge apparently disagrees with you. And he isn't the first (judge) to find in my favor, with one of the reasons being the level of detail and (...dare I say it...) verification.
Or, perhaps each time I've been on a witness stand, I've been fortunate and faced a "bad" attorney, and they never thought to press your point?

It seems like some (and you) are going to great lengths to try to discount the added quality to the overall report that can be obtained by speaking with market participants and parties to the transactions.

I stated the following in post #147:

Here is a truism: It is better to confirm or attempt to confirm the terms/conditions of the transaction with one of the parties to a transaction than not to confirm or attempt to confirm.

No one has refuted it (I wouldn't expect anyone to... but you never know!).

If you don't feel the need to interview market participants, then don't (or, interview them when you do feel the need).

I'll continue to follow my process. It works very well for me.
I'll let you know if it doesn't work well if I ever have to face a "good" attorney.

 

[hastalavista]

Again, curiosity. Why couldn't/didn't you get the "tenant" information and market dynamics from the agent's partner? Seems to me that the "partner" was either not forthcoming with you or didn't want to take the time to provide you information. Having gotten "new" information from the "original" agent, would you now find it difficult to or no longer feel comfortable speaking with the "partner" when you are trying to "verify"?

Sorry, ucbruin, I don't take this question as being serious or sincere.

And, I don't take you as being serious or sincere anymore as well.

 

[ucbruin]

Sorry, ucbruin, I don't take this question as being serious or sincere.

And, I don't take you as being serious or sincere anymore as well.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My questions are serious and hopefully not mean spirited (yet :laugh. Because we don't know one another, we "learn" about the other through our shared responses. I'm just trying to learn if you're consistent with your appraisal process and about your calls to agents/buyers/sellers. I know that no one is perfect, but I'm just trying to see if you are consistent. And so far there is consistency except where logic comes in.

I apologize in advance for using the following example to help illustrate my point, as it's not intended to insult anyone. Here goes: I don't believe that there exists today, any person who says that he/she believes in the 10 Commandments and then lives life following ALL 10, ALL the time.