Change in Intended User/ Prior Services Comment

[Lil Rhody]

In a revised appraisal where the intended user was changed but the client remained the same, is a prior services comment required? Does a change in intended user dictate a new assignment? I know a change in client does but could not find anything definitive in USPAP about a change in intended user.

Follow up question: If this is considered a new assignment, does it matter if the intended user that was changed is actually the same entity that just had a legal change of name?

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

In a revised appraisal where the intended user was changed but the client remained the same, is a prior services comment required? Does a change in intended user dictate a new assignment? I know a change in client does but could not find anything definitive in USPAP about a change in intended user.

Follow up question: If this is considered a new assignment, does it matter if the intended user that was changed is actually the same entity that just had a legal change of name?

New user new assignment, need to disclose prior service.

If the intended user is just going off a new name but is the same entity in every way I'd think it hasn't changed, no different than if someone gets married.

 

[Tom D]

Who do you mean by intended user. And where on the report does that name change. Just a little confusing.

 

[Vermonter]

Follow up question: If this is considered a new assignment, does it matter if the intended user that was changed is actually the same entity that just had a legal change of name?

If it's the same report and same intended user with a different name, I don't think the prior services disclosure applies. It's the same service.

Obviously an explanation is still necessary.

 

[Lil Rhody]

Who do you mean by intended user. And where on the report does that name change. Just a little confusing.

It's a narrative report.

 

[J Grant]

A prior service should always be disclosed. Why wouldn't you disclose it? It's a check on a form or one sentence. And a USPAP fiolaiton if you dont' disclose.

 

[Lil Rhody]

A pror service should always be disclosed. Why wouldn't you disclose it? It's a check on a form or one sentence. And a USPAP fiolaiton if you dont' disclose.

I agree, a prior service should always be disclosed. My question is would this be considered a new assignment with a change to the intended user but no change to the client or would it be considered a revised appraisal. Nothing else in the appraisal was changed, just the intended user.

 

[Tom D]

The client, you noted, isn't the intended user? I think not a new assignment because same lender, unless the scope of work changed. It's an administrative change.

Putting in any extra comments to protect yourself is never a bad idea. Although, if the original value date hasn't changed, how is it a prior service now. Or, is it just a revision, like checking the wrong box. Although no one would pick that up, they would think you did one before this the appraisal value date.

 

[Lil Rhody]

The client, you noted, isn't the intended user? I think not a new assignment because same lender, unless the scope of work changed. It's an administrative change.

Putting in any extra comments to protect yourself is never a bad idea. Although, if the original value date hasn't changed, how is it a prior service now. Or, is it just a revision, like checking the wrong box. Although no one would pick that up, they would think you did one before this the appraisal value date.

Thanks for commenting. I will try and clear things up a bit. My initial explanation was lacking and seems to be causing some confusion.

This is not an appraisal that I have developed, it is a commercial appraisal that I am reviewing. It is one appraisal out of six for a portfolio of 6 different properties. I am reviewing 1 of the appraisals for a commercial client and the other 5 appraisals are being reviewed by other reviewers.

The original appraisal was completed in November and a revised appraisal was provided yesterday with the only change being the date of the report and a change in the intended user, the client and value and effective date have remained the same. If the client were changed, this would be considered a new assignment and would require a prior services statement. I am questioning if this would be considered a new assignment with just the intended user changing.

After speaking with the client today, I was told that of the 5 other reviews, 2 of the reviewers requested that the appraiser provide a prior work statement and the other 3 did not make this request. For all 6 revised appraisals, the only changes were the intended users and the date of the report. The client asked me to try and verify if this constitutes a new assignment and I cannot find anything in USPAP that specifically addresses a change in intended user.

I hope this helps clarify my situation and question.

 

[Tom D]

Yikes, i would say not a new assignment, just a administrative revision. The intended user/s doesn't change the report, unless the scope of work would change how it was done. The lender is the client, not the intended user/s. You are doing the appraisal for the lender, not the users, who in reality are more than you put down, if loan is resold. In reality, we only put users in to protect us from some dope using it differently.
By they way, i was a lender reviewer long ago, sub prime. That was fun.
I bet you get 50/50 answers here, as is always the statistics on this blog. You do what makes you un nervous.