The New USPAP

[Terrel L. Shields]

His interpretation of it is that the appraiser is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the data regardless of its cause or source.

That's kinda the way I look at it too... "The debil made me do it." is not a very good defense in most cases. You have to verify every single word and every single thing provided to you, don't you?

SR 1-1(b) states the appraiser must not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal....

And does not specify whether or not the error was intentional. An omission is an omission regardless the source. I've seen appraisers miss the entire basement and it a finished basement at that. So, if you are reviewing a report where someone missed that basement, yet the comp appears to have been usable and the adjustments made were reasonable, would you catch that error, or even know to look for that error.

The cert already qualifies "to the best of my knowledge and belief",

I would bet 99 of 100 people going before the board believe, that at the time they did the report, TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF did the report in compliance with USPAP...and are shocked they are accused of being misleading.

 

[George Hatch]

Who made the error? That's the question at hand in all this. If the appraiser got the GBA wrong that's on the appraiser, but what about when it's a broker or public records or the property owner who got it wrong? I don't think most people are going to buy the idea that it suddenly becomes the appraiser's fault just because - in lieu of info to the contrary - they assumed it correct.

The idea of unqualified responsibility for factors which are wholly outside the appraiser's control is clearly unreasonable. Likewise, we're getting into what can be considered reasonable within a given SOW. If a user decides an exterior-only is sufficient to purpose it doesn't become the appraiser's fault that some deficiency exists which was beyond their view. The appraiser had reason to use the assumption, they needed its use in order to complete that analysis, and they disclosed the assumption. Saying it's still the appraiser's fault because the reader was "misled" is a stretch.

What about when we review another appraiser's work? We can only see what we can see, not necessarily everything else that might exist.

 

[djd09]

His interpretation of it is that the appraiser is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the data regardless of its cause or source.

that aint what they were saying on the hybrid thread...they said USPAP does not even require an inspection and either way the appraiser was not responsible for the 'data' from third party sources...i could pull up that thread

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not talking about how hybrids really work, I'm talking about the reasoning you (and others) were using to object to how they really work. Even after we repeatedly corrected you on the facts. You repeatedly equated 3rd party errors to being "misleading" on the appraiser's part if they used that info in their desktop SOW assignment. And you did it by citing that definition.

Long story short, I thought that definition was a mistake right from the outset for the reasons cited above. It's inclusion did nothing legitimate for enforceability and its absence does nothing to undermine the legitimate enforceability. Appraiser makes an error then it's their error. If they unknowingly or unintentionally repeat someone else's error that's not on the appraiser.

Appraisers are already paranoid about the idea that there's no such thing as a supportable appraisal. Adding the extra and unwarranted "gotcha" to the situation doesn't serve any legitimate purpose. IMO.

 

[Dale Floyd]

You guys really aren't making a strong case for the clarity and understandability of USPAP.

 

[chad hampton]

unfortunate that a cloning error went to a state board. Although cloning a sketch is possibly the worst cloning error one can make. I would think the appraiser would have been embarrassed enough with a simple phone call.

I inspected the wrong house one time. New construction, lots weren’t labeled very well and sort of guessed as to which house under construction mine was and did it. When called back out for the 1004d it was the house next door. Nothing I could do but call my client up and admit my mistake and do the full appraisal again on the right house. Thankfully the home was similar in GLA and it was in a higher end community of large homes, the appraiser value didn’t change much. Live and learn.

I’m not sure a class and a fine would have done any better.

 

[DWiley]

unfortunate that a cloning error went to a state board. .

I agree. 100%.

However, a lender or AMC subject to mandatory reporting laws would have no (legal) option in such a case. It was clearly an error that affected the result, which is the standard for most of the mandatory reporting laws.

 

[George Hatch]

You guys really aren't making a strong case for the clarity and understandability of USPAP.

IMO the way they worded "misleading" detracted from clarity and understandability.

 

[Mejappz]

You guys really aren't making a strong case for the clarity and understandability of USPAP.

You think? If anything this thread proves what some of us have been saying about USPAP for years now.

 

[George Hatch]

Refresh my memory.

Were you one of the people defending the idea that if an appraiser uses an incorrect fact from a 3rd party inspection that is the appraiser's fault and they should get held accountable for that error?

Or did you side with the idea that the appraiser should only be held to account for what the appraiser is actually doing?