Another suit naming eAppraiseIT & LSI

[Pat Butler]

I'm all for her suing them if they attempted to influence how she reported her market statistics. BUT, I can see no legal standing as to why any of our clients HAS to continue sending us business. It's insane to think that they should be forced to continue using her as if though she was some sort of employee with an employment contract. Of course it is CA where anything can happen.

 

[Michigan CG]

I am happy for my peers that do mostly residential work. This is a victory, and that woman is a hero in my book.

Naysay all you want, anyone who is asked to compromise their ethics and then stands up for their ethics is a hero.

This is national news, and this is good for all of those who depend on residential appraising.

 

[hastalavista]

I'm all for her suing them if they attempted to influence how she reported her market statistics. BUT, I can see no legal standing as to why any of our clients HAS to continue sending us business. It's insane to think that they should be forced to continue using her as if though she was some sort of employee with an employment contract. Of course it is CA where anything can happen.

Pat-

I see it this way:
The issue isn't that a federally regulated institution has or doesn't have the right to use any appraiser they want among those who are qualified.

The issue is, in addition to being qualified, can that institution demand as a condition of engagement an appraiser to violate the regulatory requirements the appraiser (and said institution) are directed to follow?

 

[JENIFFERW]

Pat, this is Jeniffer. I want to respond. Read the causes of action listed and detailed in the body of the suit carefully. There are legitimate civil causes of action that exist that most people (including me until now) aren't aware of. I feel what they did to me was wrong and the courts have become my only recourse. I did try to work this out before it got to this.

 

[Pat Butler]

No, it it's illegal for an institution to demand that the appraiser violate any regulatory requirements; and for that they should be legally liable.

But this complaint goes well beyond that. The appraiser is trying to show that they had an obligation to continue providing orders to her. Heck, even the independent contractor agreement she provides in her complaint shows where she agreed that the agreement is not implying any ongoing relationship or a guarantee or promise of any business. She agreed to those terms, yet is suing them as if though they owe her something. Jeesh.

She also agreed to pay their legal fees. Wonder how that'll hold up.

 

[Wayne Henry]

I second that.

It just takes too long for a civil suit to be heard and ruled upon. And then it can be appealed afterward. It is sad and a shame that good people have to suffer at the hands of unscrupulous people and unscrupulous companies.

I feel I was also unjustly removed from Landsafe after a complaint about my values not coming in. But I do not feel like fighting it , for what , just so that I can continue to bust my rear end for them to earn reduced fees... screw it. I do have a case though seeming all three of the files they "randomly" audited were all value reconsiderations that were turned down in writing by me.

 

[Brad Ellis]

I think there are two concepts at play here and the lines between them are easily crossed.

First, I think it revolves somewhat around fact vs. opinion. In Jennifer's case (assuming all the "facts" she cites are provable in court- once again I do NOT doubt that) then she is dealing with a fact. Her work demonstrating a declining market would, for most, be considered a fact. So removing her from the panel sure appears to be both unfair and dead wrong.

On the other side, there are certainly many legitimate reasons why a client may not want to work with a particular appraiser. Among them might be unprofessional conduct, lack of timely reporting, fee issues, etc. etc. I think we could all agree on some, anyway, that any of us would deem acceptable. And, of course, there are those in which we'd have differing opinions. No matter.

I do not know Jennifer but if Denis says she is an ethical and competent appraiser who knows what she is doing that is simply good enough for me. I do not know any of the parties (that I am aware of) involved here.

So just based upon what I've read this seems a legitimate course of action for her.

But, I am still conflicted a bit over some of the trends here that could ultimately cause some problems for the profession- note this does not involve her specific suit. What concerns me is the possibility that we could start seeing some suits that are really frivolous in nature.

In some other strings there are appraisers who seem to believe that they are entitled to work for a client just because they are licensed. I have never believed that.

So, it is possible that we could see lawsuits over Firm A refusing to put Appraiser A on their panel, even though Firm A already has 15 appraisers in that market where they generate only 2 loans there per month. Or we could see a suit because a client asks an appraiser to answer some innocent and legitimate questions because in that appraiser's mind it rises to a level of coercion even though the rest of us would not agree with that.

Should that sort of thing start to occur, we could well see clients opting to to try to get legislation changed to allow them to assess collateral without an appraiser involved at all. Most of you would not like to see loans being based solely upon an AVM or BPO or the like.

So if you are considering providing her with examples her attorney might use just make sure that there is really some beef in them. If you are not sure let her atorneys decide- but if you know that your instance is just carping over something unclear, you might be doing her a disservice.

Brad

 

[Lost Cause]

I'm not TC, but I did sleep in Holiday Inn Express last night. I believe the young lady spells her name; "Jeniffer".

Go get 'em. Jeniffer!

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Maybe, just maybe.... instead of the dire results Brad is threatening us with, some entity that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LENDING BUSINESS will set up an approved panel of appraiser for rotation assignments where ANY mortgage appraisal for ANY US real property is handled completely OUTSIDE of any lender input.

Screw the lenders directing the appraisal process into what it never should be!!!! I'm NOT buying the appraisers will be tossed out by AVMs and BPOs because they insist on being treated like human beings and reasonably intelligent licensed professionals either.

I'm looking forward to all the 'others' that are involved with the unlocking and 'converting' our appraisal reports into something the appraiser did not do and datamining for their own databases, AMVs, and personal financial rewards, who I consider to be theives and fraudsters, getting dragged into this and hung by the legal system.

What did they really expect after pushing and pushing and pushing the competent and ethical appraisers into corners? We now have nothing left to lose, so we ARE coming out fighting, kicking, and screaming for blood.

 

[hastalavista]

But, I am still conflicted a bit over some of the trends here that could ultimately cause some problems for the profession- note this does not involve her specific suit. What concerns me is the possibility that we could start seeing some suits that are really frivolous in nature.

Brad-

As you wrote, your concern is in general and not in regards to this specific.

I agree that there is a danger of frivolous lawsuits; that risk exists inside and outside of our profession. I'm relatively comfortable (at least, for now) that the risk level of such lawsuits advancing through the civil-courts system is relatively low when one considers the costs involved and the type of plaintiff (us lowly appraisers with our not-deep pockets) who would have to make such a case.

Truth be told, I don't think there needs to be any frivolous lawsuits because I think there may exist a sufficient number of legitimate lawsuits to press forward. In fact, the best thing that could happen for all parties involved is for those legitimate lawsuits to go forward, and then the courts can establish some type of standard to judge the merit of future cases.

I think those who believe that a license is a guarantee to employment are misguided, so in that we agree. But, that's off topic so on that I will say no more! :new_smile-l: