You totally missed my point. My point is that if an AMC or lender was accused of violating C and R laws, it woudl be up to the accuser to prove guilt. That is how it works in the US. But some seem to think that it is the accused who would have to prove innocence.
If you go to traffic court to defend an accusation of speeding, you do not have to prove you were not seeding. Rather, the accuser would have to prove that you were.
If you went to trial because a malicious homeowner accused you of stealing something from their home, you would not have to prove you were innocent -rather, the homeowner wodul have to prove you were guilty.
The same principle applies to the C&R laws, regardless of anyone's personal feelings about the laws themselves or the affected parties. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and defendants are presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and that presumption is not restricted to C&R.
Selective Reading Danny?
No where does it say an AMC is presumed to meet the qualifications required to presume C&R has been paid.
12 CFR 226.42
(2)Presumption of compliance. A
creditor and its agents shall be presumed to comply with paragraph (f)(1) if -
(ii) The
creditor and its agents do not engage in any anticompetitive acts in violation of
state or federal law that affect the compensation paid to fee appraisers, including -
(A) Entering into any contracts or engaging in any conspiracies to restrain trade through methods such as price fixing or market allocation, as prohibited under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. 1, or any other relevant antitrust laws; or
(B) Engaging in any acts of monopolization such as restricting any
person from entering the relevant geographic market or causing any
person to leave the relevant geographic market, as prohibited under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. 2, or any other relevant antitrust laws.
and
(3)Alternative presumption of compliance. A
creditor and its agents shall be presumed to comply with paragraph (f)(1) if the
creditor or its agents determine the
amount of compensation paid to the fee appraiser by relying on information about rates that:
(i) Is based on objective third-party information, including fee schedules, studies, and surveys prepared by independent third parties such as government agencies, academic institutions, and private research firms;
(ii) Is based on recent rates paid to a representative sample of providers of appraisal services in the geographic market of the property being appraised or the fee schedules of those providers; and
(iii) In the case of information based on fee schedules, studies, and surveys, such fee schedules, studies, or surveys, or the information derived therefrom, excludes compensation paid to fee appraisers for appraisals ordered by appraisal management companies, as defined in
paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section.
AMCs don't just get to lay claim that they comply with Presumption anything.
First they have to show that either they did not do the things in 12CFR226.42 (2)(ii), (A) and (B), or they can qualify for a presumption of having paid C&R under (3), so long as they additionally follow (i),(II) and (iii)
Not bounce around saying, we're paying recent rates under presumption 1, because everyone is suppposed to presume we're not engaging in any
conspiracies to restrain trade through methods such as price fixing or market allocation, as prohibited under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. 1, or any other relevant antitrust laws; or, Engaging in any acts of monopolization such as restricting any
person from entering the relevant geographic market or causing any
person to leave the relevant geographic market, as prohibited under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. 2, or any other relevant antitrust laws.
See those Presumptions were never written as freedom of choice to comply with one or the other or not. They have mandated qualifiers which must be followed, - as they are not choices.
