Anonymous Complaints

[Terry Russell]

Was Jesus an appraiser?

Actually Jesus it is my belief that Jesus anticipated his fate and surrendered to or into martydom. He did a good job.

tr

 

[Dale Smalley]

What makes this bad Mike is for someone like you. Your reputation is built around ethics and someone (or nobody) makes and an anonymous complaint. This will show on your record. As Tom mentioned before you would then be subject to rumors that are presented as fact to the board. Either way you loose.

Why does this society bend over backwards to protect
the criminal

This is done to protect the innocent from being falsely accused.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

With such a high percentage of complaints involving little more than professional jealousy by appraisers who were beat in court, or by lawyers who were beat attempting to discredit an appraiser in future court hearings, I am opposed to anonomous complaints. At worst I would accept that the complaint be forwarded to the appraiser, who would be allowed a response, and both letters be placed in file. But the board should take no action nor initiate a "board inquiry". Board inquiries become fishing expeditions...a big game of "gotcha".

I saw the effects of just such a self-generated board investigation last summer. The investigator, who lost copies of the report, asked a bank to provide copies for the third time, at which time the bank considered referring the matter to their attorney. The end result was that the bank dropped the person being investigated from their vendors list because of the bother. The appraiser did not get sanctions over that report, but did lose a client and the only reason was because of the board muddling around in files the bank were not happy to release. They have privacy laws to follow, too.

I agree that a complaint should be notarized and that only should go forward. By forcing the party to put their reputation where their mouth is, you give the appraiser a weapon to defend themselves, i.e.- if it is a lie, you can sue for slandering your professional expertise. Who do you sue if the complaint is anonomous. Remember my post from a condemnation appraiser detailing the $75,000 his friend spent clearing his name before a board? It took 2 years to work thru the system, 2 years of a cloud over your head, 2 years of reduced workload and facing hostile attorneys from the DOT arguing that his work was suspect because of the investigation....they would have preferred he remain under a cloud forever.

I suspect anyone who supports anonomous complaints has never had one filed against them. And contrary to Mike Simpson's belief, most complaints are frivolous. A repair man filed a complaint against a friend of mine on HUD appraisal because the realtor stiffed him for repair costs. Another faced a board hearing when he beat an MAI in a condemnation case, thrown out after 8 months or so. I have suffered under a suit in which 2 people suing me were foreclosed upon and I DID NOT EVER APPRAISE THEIR PROPERTY!!! I appraised their son's property FOUR DAYS AFTER HE BOUGHT IT for exactly what he gave for it, yet they argued in court that a third party told them I appraised it prior to the sale for the amount of the mortgage....which was $258,000. The appraisal was for $232,000. ORAL ARGUMENTS (This is about 35 min. long, my lawyer is near the end and summarizes it well) - click party/atty and type in shields terrel to get to the case number.
This case was filed in May 2002. If they are sucessful in appeal (won't know until March or so) it goes back to square one....probably depositions (summer?), where it could end again only to be appealed again, then on to trial (2005?, 2006?).

 

[Mike Simpson]

This issue is similar to the death penalty argument.

Some argue that innocent people could be put to death...yet there's no concrete evidence that this has happened.

Sweatshops are flourishing. Number Hitters prosper, and some of Ya'All are afraid that a "good appraiser" might be turned in over a frivolous complaint.

Hopefully, most State Boards recognize the difference between a frivolous report, and somebody sitting on a beach in Cabo San Lucas--slurpin down inexpensive Margarita's while reports magically zip across the phone lines with the "did inspect" box marked, and appraiser's digital signature attached. AND, NO...THEY DIDN'T INSPECT THE PROPERTY BEFORE THEY LEFT--IT WAS DONE BY A TRAINEE IN THEIR ABSENCE!

My issue with this nonsensical (IMO) hypothetical example is this; some seem MORE concerned with how the information was obtained than the fact the appraiser in the example is breaking the law.

-Mike

 

[Randy Beigh]

I had not made a judgment on anonymous complaints.

On a personal basis, I was always opposed to anonymous anything. I sign my name and city to all posts in this and other forums. I have turned 4 appraisers in since licensing began and my name was on all of them. I am not anonymous.

From a complaint position, I was unsure of the right way to go. Just because I don't like anonymity, doesn't mean there isn't a good reason for it. But, after listening to Dale and Terrel's reasoning, I have come down on the side that it shouldn't be allowed. Above licensing, above Mike's beloved "sweatshops," above all else is the Constitution. And that is more important.

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Mike

I respect the argument that many appraisers are doing bad work and that they deserve to suffer the consequences.

Nevertheless, correctly defining the process of "how it is determined who is doing what wrong" is crucial to the future of our profession.

A given appraiser may be absolutely certain that the way he sees things is correct and the only way the facts can be interpreted, (in the case you suggest sipping Marguritas in Mexico while reports are being signed in New England), but the process of reporting those facts must be accomplished professionally, and verified professionally before public allegations are made.

Anonymous complaints reduces the level of responsibility for submitting complaints and in many cases hinders the ability of the board to verify the accuracy of the charges.

Also, it is regretable but the assumption that most boards know the difference between frivolous complaints and those that are not frivolous is not valid. The very fact that boards are willing to use non-appraisers, or appraisers who do not have to comply with our professional requirements (Std 3 reviews), in the screening process should demonstrate to even the most enthusastic supporters of our current regulation efforts that something other than a rigorous, consistent and academic approach to determining professional malfeasceance is the order of the day at most boards.

That many boards get this issue (what is frivilous and what is not) wrong as a matter of routine becomes transparently obvious when you ask why some boards do not want Std 3 reviews accomplished. They cite time and money to achieve competency of the investigators as their biggest issues. The final factor that impedes consistent enforcement is the lack of standard application of USPAP and a lack of reference to professional text as generally accepted appraisal practices. If you have admittedly incompetent staff and you have decisons based on no uniform professional standard, you will have bad decisions about the merits of a given case.

This cuts two ways, the guilty go unpunished because the complaint is mistakenly labelled friviolous, and the appraiser who gets it right gets prosecuted because of incompetent or biased staff.

Boards who like the current process all argue, trust us we are doing a great job. But the fact that there are many who complain that boards are not doing enough, and others that argue that boards are doing it all wrong, should also alert all appraisers that trust alone is insufficient to ensure professional competence by our regulators.

I would opine that one simple step in the right direction is to require all complaints by appraisers against a fellow appraiser to be in writing, and where the quality of the work product is the issue, the complaint should be in the form of a Std 3 review written to the highest possible standard. Boards would have less latitude for making errors in either direction.

Best Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[George Hatch]

Under our system of justice, the ideals that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty and the requirements for due process are rooted in the concept that our society considers it better to allow a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man hang. Pretty dramatic stuff. Nevertheless, the ends do not justify the means in our system, unless maybe when we're talking about terrorists and mobsters and spies and such. Even so, the ACLU and a sizeable percentage of our citizenry disagree with any exceptions to those ideals.

I agree that appraisal malfeasance is a serious issue, but in the grand scheme of things we cannot equate it with a capital crime or a declaration of war. How many of us are interested in having our phones bugged or our computers monitored simply because we earn our living appraising properties? Power and authority are strange creatures in some ways. If we don't delegate enough of it to our government the results are worse than anarchy; if we delegate too much we end up living under an iron fist with no margin for error or disagreement.

Besides, the truly guilty are creatures of habit, and it is those habits that generally will lead to their undoing if we are patient and wise. While catching the occasional thief is largely a matter of luck and chance, the career crook is the player who causes the most damage. Catching those guys requires careful construction of a case that will withstand scrutiny and review. Any weaknesses in the case can lead to its defeat, simply because we must favor the presumption of innocence. The casual thief will plead out immediately because they never really intended to choose this path; but the career crook will fight to the end using every trick at their disposal because they have committed to this path and know no other. If we want to cull them from our herd we must choose and use our methods wisely and honestly. History has shown us repeatedly that there is no such thing as a secret and that the ends will always be considered within the context of the means.

IMO.

 

[Paul Ness MAI]

IMHO, anonymous complaints should be allowed and submitted along with a copy or copies of appraisals to be investigated. Here's a true story and the reason I'm in favor of same.

An out-of-town appraiser was doing numerous appraisals for an illegal flipping scheme in my home town. After the flippers were found out, a local appraiser was called to do reviews. She turned the appraiser in to the state and was promptly sued by the appraiser. The flipping case made headlines and anyone could have turned in this guy had they seen his work. The appraiser with enough guts to turn him in got hit financially with attorney's fees and the attorney's wound up the winners. The suspect appraiser essentially walked...and that's another story. In my state, until recently, the small handful of people investigating appraisal complaints were the same people in the state department that were investigating bad barbers!!! The situation has since improved, so I am told.

What difference does it make if the tips are anonymous or not? Police take anonymous tips as does the IRS. No difference here.

 

[Dale Smalley]

The difference is that you are presumed guilty and even if you prove your case under administrative law the board can (and does) issue sanctions and penalities.

 

[Mike Simpson]

"...above all else is the Constitution."

No where in the Constitution does it say that anonymous tips evidencing a crime are disallowed.

I don't know what the sweatshop crack is all about, but I'll consider it just that...a crack.

I'm getting a clearer and clearer understanding of why nothing has been done, nothing is being done, and (presumably) nothing will be done to remedy the problems addressed in the Appraisers Petition.

-Mike