Certification 25 3.6

[djd09]

remember when they told you to define the client and users...just pointless

 

[George Hatch]

That's a problem identification process. You cannot figure out what it will take to perform this assignment to their expectations without first identifying what those expectations are. That's why 3rd party expectations are not part of the appraiser's responsibility. Uncommunicated expectations are by definition, unknown and unknowable.

 

[djd09]

" may choose to store, copy, reproduce, analyze, use and distribute the data in the appraisal report"

cert 25 verbiage makes cert 23 look like an angel...

 

[George Hatch]

Acknowledgement of the reality which has always existed. Not consent.

Personally, I think I would have worded it as "might choose" which cannot be interpreted as consent. But there might be some legal reason for not phrasing it that way.

 

[djd09]

yeah i agree...15th st is a party

 

[George Hatch]

WRT "Confidentiality" issues, I always saw that as a parallel to atty-client confidentiality. THe purpose is to prohibit the appraiser from sharing their results with their client's adversary, particularly when there are legal disputes.

Appraiser performs an appraisal for one side of a business dispute or divorce. The other side wants that appraisal so they can either use it for free or prepare their responses in advance. Confidentiality requirements prohibit the appraiser from what amounts to working against their own client.

 

[djd09]

...client bias

 

[George Hatch]

Sorry, but the appraiser-client relationship is not an example of unethical conduct. "Confidentiality" is about protecting what amounts to the legitimate property rights of the client as it pertains to an appraisal report they engaged. Confidentiality is not about dorking the SR1 or SR2 elements of the assignment to favor the client's desired outcome.

 

[Fargo1]

I agree that at best its poorly worded if they are trying to say "the clients can do whatever they want and the appraiser is not responsible." That would have been better. But that's not what is says.

Let me make an analogy, Lets say some kids mom baked a bunch of cookies for dads Christmas party at work. To make sure everyone knew their rights to the cookies, she put a note with the cookies. The note reads, "Anyone who receives these cookies may store them, eat them, or distribute them for their own purposes without obtaining the chefs permission." Now she hands the cookies over to the kids to hold until dad picks them up. Did she give the kids permission to eat some cookies? She handed them over to the kids and the kids received them. Looks like permission to me.

I hope you're right and this never becomes an issue. But I'd prefer to get some changes or clarity in the forms on this. To me it looks like they intentionally put it in there for the data brokers to gather your data before it ever gets to the lenders. It looks like a huge liability issue to me. I'll be making clarification comments on that statement.

 

[George Hatch]

We had a somewhat similar problem with C23 except at the time Fannie/Freddie actually thought "intended user" applied to everyone. This time they cleaned up the cert by differentiating between "might do" vs "has the appraiser's consent to do".

C23 has been around for a long time but for the most part it appears that the courts have understood the limitations of "intended use" and "intended user" and have mostly overruled the argument that the appraiser is responsible to everyone.