Using MLS Photos

[Deleted member 130081]

It is called Scope of Work. It is part of USPAP. On the 1004 form it is a certification that one signs.

When one does a private party appraisal on a residential assignment it is not a requirement that one inspect the comps from the street.....unless one certifies they do so.

Pretty sure USPAP says something about the SOW decision being up to the appraiser no?

 

[Deleted member 130081]

We keep coming back to this: the SOW - and the certification - in the GSE forms is not to "drive the comps"; it is to inspect the comps. The issue of complying with the SOW and certs is not one that lends itself to a "cost/benefit analysis": if that analysis convinces an appraiser that it isn't worth it to inspect them, don't accept assignments that require you do do so. Simple. Find clients that don't care whether you inspect the comparables.

You reply as if I have zero understanding of delivering what a client hires me to do.

Is it ethical to sell silver and call it gold?

 

[Peter LeQuire]

#271 is a veritable blivot of eyewash. An appraiser cannot ethically accept an appraisal assignment requiring use of the GSE forms and arbitrarily, unilaterally modify the scope of work to allow himself the latitude of not complying with the SOW and certifications of those forms.

If you understand that inspecting the comps from at least the street is required by the scope of work and choose not to inspect the comps from at least the street, you are then without excuse if you are challenged for not doing what you knew you were supposed to do. The client - among other things - hires an appraiser anticipating that the appraiser will do what the appraiser promises to do, and that, when the appraiser signs the certification that he has inspected the comps from at least the street, he has inspected the comps from at least the street.

 

[TRESinc]

You reply as if I have zero understanding of delivering what a client hires me to do.

Is it ethical to sell silver and call it gold?

is it ethical to agree to a SOW and then not perform what you agreed to?

 

[Deleted member 130081]

#271 is a veritable blivot of eyewash. An appraiser cannot ethically accept an appraisal assignment requiring use of the GSE forms and arbitrarily, unilaterally modify the scope of work to allow himself the latitude of not complying with the SOW and certifications of those forms.

If you understand that not inspecting the comps from at least the street and choose not to inspect the comps from at least the street, you are then without excuse if you are challenged for not doing what you knew you were supposed to do. The client - among other things - hires an appraiser anticipating that the appraiser will do what the appraiser promises to do, and that, when the appraiser signs the certification that he has inspected the comps from at least the street, that he has inspected the comps from at least the street.

As author of #271, I would ask you please define "veritable blivot of eyewash". I charge you a reckless responder. You have taken what I have said completely out of context. If you don't want to have a discussion on what could eventually turn into changes made to standardized forms and methods, fine, don't engage. It would be appreciated then however that you just not jump in half way and make silly comments that have nothing to do with the point.

 

[CANative]

Pretty sure USPAP says something about the SOW decision being up to the appraiser no?

I don't know if that was a serious post or not. So forgive me if I didn't make the correct assumption.

Solving the appraisal problem has 6 elements. One of which is assignment conditions. The appraisers is responsible for developing and executing a scope of work that recognizes the elements. To ignore assignment conditions would be a scope of work failure.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

a discussion on what could eventually turn into changes made to standardized forms and methods--is that what this has been? I thought it was a look at how some people refuse to do that which they have said they would do--i.e. refuse to driveby the comps when it says that's what they have done in their certifications (sorry, they are preprinted and you're stuck with them).

 

[Deleted member 130081]

is it ethical to agree to a SOW and then not perform what you agreed to?

Of course not. Have I said anywhere that it was?

I'm talking about appraisers telling/inferring/whatever clients that services rendered are valuable and necessary when in fact they are not - doctors call it the up-sell. I don't care who decided it was to be part of the SOW (in this case it was the client, not by appraiser consensus). Personally taking comp photos, in my opinion, is one of those items that has little value in the over-all credibility of the opinion and report. It takes a lot of resources to drive comps and get that stupid photo I could have just as easily cut and paste from the MLS. I am simply saying that's an exercise that does not return much value for how much it costs to do it. By the time I have decided to use a comp in my report, believe me I have inspected the damn thing ten times over and like I said, it is extremely rare that I find it was something other than I thought it was going to be once I get out there. There are other parts of the standardized forms and methods that fall into the almost useless category too, but gee I don't think this is place to have that conversation intelligently. No wonder appraisers never get a say in anything that concerns them.

 

[Mr Rex]

Pete and I agree, do what you say you signed saying you did. When Pete and I agree it is an absolute, like gravity and that the sun rises in the east and sets to the west.

 

[djd09]

One of which is assignment conditions.

Define assignment conditions?