ASA fired off quite the letter

[Meandering]

Oh my, so defensive. and you said you love me.

 

[George Hatch]

My comments in this thread have zero to do with you as an individual. I just think the paranoia some people have about unlimited liability over services they didn't perform and didn't control are excessive. Besides, an appraiser is FAR more likely to get sued for an inspection-related error in a conventional 1004 than in a 2055, but that exposure hasn't led to most appraisers changing how they operate in a 1004 assignment.

 

[Meandering]

Oh well,

I was just thinking it all sounded so similar to;

"you can use forms created by AMCs, you just have to write the correct SOW"

until AI connect and Fannie stayed late to tell everyone;
"No. Appraisers must use the 1004 and other GSE forms"
and then the very next day, the forum experienced "the big quit" with so many changing their names and avatars, and other's leaving the forum, some for good, some for everything except fantasy football.

 

[Mejappz]

Oh well,

I was just thinking it all sounded so similar to;

"you can use forms created by AMCs, you just have to write the correct SOW"

until AI connect and Fannie stayed late to tell everyone;
"No. Appraisers must use the 1004 and other GSE forms"
and then the very next day, the forum experienced "the big quit" with so many changing their names and avatars, and other's leaving the forum, some for good, some for everything except fantasy football.

Scope of work for secondary market work = Take it or leave it.

 

[George Hatch]

Which is why the very act of designing an appraisal form and promulgating an appraisal policy falls under the definition of "Appraisal Practice", and as such includes certain moral, ethical and technical obligations. Whether they're legally compelled to comply or not.

It's immoral for a GSE to build a Catch-22 trap for appraisers and create an indefensible liability position for appraisers. IMO.

 

[Meandering]

We agree.

But it was the AMCs that were creating their own forms back in the day.
and it was some forumites who were pushing that it was okay to use those AMCs created forms, so long as appraisers wrote the scope of the work to say that the "intended user" required that unique form.



Good thing USPAP is a "living document" to keep some folks fed.

.

 

[George Hatch]

It is entirely okay to use different forms for different clients/users. It all depends on what those users actually find meaningful to their usage. Now when an AMC gets out over their skis WRT their client's actual needs/requirements that's definitely a problem, but that problem is occurring at the AMC/Lender relationship, not with the appraisers who are operating in good faith when they take those assignments.

If a client is telling an appraiser that this form is what they want to use and that it is acceptable for the intended user it's going to be hard to argue that every appraiser working to these expectations should have known that was impossible.

 

[Meandering]

yeah but hold harmless only applies to the AMCs out over their skies. Not to the lemming appraisers.

 

[Meandering]

And do the AMCs add the "quality" to appraisals, via the "inspections" they are vetting and hiring and proof reading?

Hold harmless

 

[George Hatch]

yeah but hold harmless only applies to the AMCs out over their skies. Not to the lemming appraisers.

With the exception of a known/knowable unreasonable assignment condition, how can an appraiser be held liable for working to the terms of their engagement?

Use your words.