• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Appraisal Bias

Status
Not open for further replies.
then the MBs wouldn't have complained as much as they did about losing control over the appraisers.
They could only control the appraisers willing to let them. And those are the same appraisers who still inflate appraisals and attempt to meet the contract prices...without any urging from the AMC/client.
 
Early in the loan production the newby learns the Purchase Contract is the path of least resistance and the one that nobody is unhappy about. Now with public being told 97% suffer from systemic racism my guess is all appraisals will come in at purchase price and only a fool would risk his career by trying to be too good. Geez let some reviewer cut the value and lay all the blame on him. I would hate to be a Reviewer today because my guess is many will be hung by their thumbs.

Hell even the original appraiser may jump on the borrowers team and say yep the reviewer is just part of the problem. I Feel bad for residential loan production right now its like having a Bulls Eye on your back with each new assignment :) LOL
 

A Marin City couple who sued a real estate appraiser over alleged racial discrimination has reached an out-of-court settlement.

Paul Austin and his wife Tenisha Tate-Austin sued appraiser Janette Miller and Miller and Perotti Real Estate Appraisals in San Rafael. They also sued AMC Links LLC, an appraisal management company in Utah. The suits were filed in 2021.

The Austins alleged that the defendants supplied them with an appraisal that undervalued their house because they are Black. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California participated in the suit as a co-plaintiff.

Caroline Peattie, the executive director of Fair Housing, said the decision to settle was made because of the toll such a case takes on the people bringing it and the uncertainty of the outcome.

RELATED: Marin County home appraisal featured in racial bias documentary

“Obviously we felt we had a strong case or else we wouldn’t have pursued it in the first place,” Peattie said. “Filing a lawsuit on the strength of the evidence is one thing and how a judge will rule is a separate question. You’re never assured of a particular outcome. I think everybody involved with the case was ready to move on.”

In a statement, Paul Austin said, “We’re glad that we can put this lawsuit behind us. Having to experience everything that came with receiving the lowballed appraisal was overwhelming. Being able to tell our story and knowing we had legal recourse helped.”

Tenisha Tate-Austin said, “The ongoing undervaluation of homes in Black neighborhoods perpetuates the wealth gap between Black and white families. We hope by bringing attention to our case and this lawsuit settlement, we can help change the way the appraisal industry operates, and we can start to see a different trend.”

Neither Miller nor any other representatives of Miller and Perotti Real Estate Appraisals responded to requests for comment.

AMC Links hired Miller to appraise the Austins’ home in 2020 at the request of their mortgage broker. The Austins were seeking to refinance their mortgage to make renovations to their home.

Miller came back with a valuation of $995,000, which was $455,000 lower than an appraisal done for a previous mortgage refinance on the house in 2019. Dissatisfied with Miller’s appraisal, the Austins requested and received a second appraisal by another professional hired by AMC Links.

Suspicious that their race may have been a factor in Miller’s appraisal, this time the Austins removed any evidence of their racial identities inside their house during the inspection and made sure a White friend was the only person present at the time.

This time the house was valued at $1.48 million.

The Austins’ suit singled out five pieces of evidence to support its allegation of housing discrimination due to race.

First, the suit cited the “unreasonably and inexplicably low market value” arrived at by Miller. Second were adjustments to value based solely on the house’s location in Marin City.

Third was the “perceived race” of the homeowners. Fourth was a comment Miller made regarding the “distinct marketability” of Marin City. Fifth was Miller’s use of property sales located exclusively or primarily in Marin City as comparisons.

When doing her sales comparisons, Miller used three properties in Marin City, two in Mill Valley and one in Sausalito. The second appraiser used two properties in Marin City and six in Sausalito.

According to the suit, Miller’s decision to compare the Austins’ house to other homes sold in Marin City resulted in the valuation being dictated by past sale prices that were “the direct product of racial discrimination.”

In January 2022, Miller’s attorneys issued a 29-page rejoinder to the allegations made by the Austins.

“There is nothing inherently racist about choosing comparable properties that are located in the same city as the Subject Property,” the brief stated. “Without any direct (or indirect) evidence of actual racial discrimination Miller’s choice of comparable properties cannot support Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination.”

Regarding Miller’s comment about “distinct marketability,” the attorneys wrote, “It is self-evident that every geographical area would have some sort of distinct marketability. If the Plaintiffs’ argument is accepted, any appraiser who used the term ‘distinct marketability’ to describe a home in Marin City would be liable for racial discrimination.”

In August 2022, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ruled that there were no grounds for one of the causes for action contained in the suit, a claim of “negligent misrepresentation.”

The suit alleged that the Austins had “reasonably relied on defendants’ representations and were harmed in doing so.”

The judge, however, wrote in her ruling that there was nothing to suggest “the Austins believed the representations in the Miller Defendants’ appraisal report were true.”

In their brief, Miller’s lawyers pointed out that the Austins’ mortgage broker relied on the second appraisal when extending a loan to them.

In her statement Monday, Tenisha Tate-Austin said, “We missed out on a better interest rate because of the unfair appraisal we received.”



RELATED ARTICLES​

Miller’s attorneys, however, assert that interest rates actually went down between the time of the first audit in February 2020 and the second in March 2020.


The plaintiffs reached a confidential settlement with AMC Links, according to Fair Housing. No information was released about the terms of the settlement, but it specified that AMC Links “denied any wrongdoing.”

Regarding the suit against Miller, Fair Housing wrote in a statement that the agreement includes “an undisclosed monetary amount with additional terms.”

Julia Howard-Gibbon, Fair Housing’s supervising attorney, said in the agreement the defendants pledge they will not “engage in any form of unlawful discrimination in the appraisal of residential real estate” in the future, while not admitting they “engaged in any unlawful discrimination in the past.”
The problem was that the two appraisals had two significantly different values.
Whenever I do an appraiser and I realize there is going to be a 2nd appraisal for this property, I'm on red alert and put 110% in my report to make sure everything is "correct".
I know it will be compared with the other appraiser's report and mine has to be "better" so my value is more "accurate".
Unfortunately, when I meet the appraiser, I have to be careful what I say. We're supposed to do our appraisal independently and can't be influenced by other appraiser.
Besides competing with other appraisers on fees, two different appraisals on same subject on same effective date are our concern with other appraisers.
 
Early in the loan production the newby learns the Purchase Contract is the path of least resistance and the one that nobody is unhappy about. Now with public being told 97% suffer from systemic racism my guess is all appraisals will come in at purchase price and only a fool would risk his career by trying to be too good. Geez let some reviewer cut the value and lay all the blame on him. I would hate to be a Reviewer today because my guess is many will be hung by their thumbs.

Hell even the original appraiser may jump on the borrowers team and say yep the reviewer is just part of the problem. I Feel bad for residential loan production right now its like having a Bulls Eye on your back with each new assignment :) LOL
Please do not encourage newer appraisers here or established appraisers to hit CS price out of fear.
 
The problem was that the two appraisals had two significantly different values.
Whenever I do an appraiser and I realize there is going to be a 2nd appraisal for this property, I'm on red alert and put 110% in my report to make sure everything is "correct".
I know it will be compared with the other appraiser's report and mine has to be "better" so my value is more "accurate".
Unfortunately, when I meet the appraiser, I have to be careful what I say. We're supposed to do our appraisal independently and can't be influenced by other appraiser.
Besides competing with other appraisers on fees, two different appraisals on same subject on same effective date are our concern with other appraisers.
The difference in values was so large one of the appraisers had to be wrong ( unless they were both bad appraisals and the better value was somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately, it was settled and the two appraisals, as far as I know, are not public record so there is no way to tell
 
Please do not encourage newer appraisers here or established appraisers to hit CS price out of fear.
Since Fannie said 90% already hit the SC Price, I dont think you have to worry about what I say as the news is already out there and has been for years :)
 
The difference in values was so large one of the appraisers had to be wrong ( unless they were both bad appraisals and the better value was somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately, it was settled and the two appraisals, as far as I know, are not public record so there is no way to tell
Wasn't the lawsuit about racial discrimination? Where was the proof of that? The complaint in the Marin City case claimed it was racially biased because the appraiser used too many comps within the subject's Marin City instead of other areas with a higher population of "whites."
 
and what does the AVM use?
You mean for those properties that were not personally inspected by the appraisers? I think you know the answer to that. The missing piece of the data that the AVMs use is limited to the subject property data, not the appraiser's valuation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top