Certification 25 3.6

[Francois K. Gregoire]

do you think the quasi client defining the intended users and use of the appraisal report falls within the definition of independent?

You might wish to use your legendary research skills to take a look at the defintion of Intended Use and Intended User (Lines 125 - 128) along with the Scope of Work Rule (Problem Identifiication, Lines 423 -440) in the 2024 Edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

USPAP Without Line Numbers

Wondering about your concern for terms defined in USPAP and the ability of appraisers to comply with USPAP. Who was it that said USPAP is useless?

 

[djd09]

idk...TAF said that cert 25 which defines the intended users and uses is not part of USPAP...is that a hard pill to swallow?

 

[Zoe]

Only if you do Fannie/Freddie work and only if you don't alter the certification. If your reading of USPAP is that you can not comply with both USPAP and Certification 25, then do something about it. Only appraisers are required to comply with USPAP. Fannie/Freddie aren't appraisers.

I think the author is indicating TAF has an influence. I know @Francois K. Gregoire is for separation of fees. Data mining is a different ballgame because many appraisers believe they should be compensated for proprietary and intellectual data.

 

[chad hampton]

Hell of a problem then when f/f create forms, require appraisers to use them, Then make comments like - by the way, you can't change anything on them. I realize a lot of appraisers haven't even done anything besides sell and appraise RE, but this isn't the way other professions operate.

These groups are all in bed with each other. Nothing will change until that ends.

 

[djd09]

These groups are all in bed with each other. Nothing will change until that ends.

yeah maybe if they weren't next door neighbors on 15th st...things would be different...but do not be deceived...bad company corrupts good morals

 

[djd09]

Thread 'By request: UAD vs Cert #23'

Aug 22, 2011

I shouldn't even have to flesh the premise of this discussion out - the thread title says it all. But because I'm a verbose gasbag I'll do it anyway.

A friend of mine called me up this morning to chat about this topic and asked me to post a thread here to submit the topic for your consideration.

On the one hand, Fannie/Freddie's infamous Cert #23 makes reference to the universe of off label uses that one of their reports "may" be used for, as well as noting, as an example, a couple some of these off-label intended users by groups. The GSEs never did us the courtesy of...

• George Hatch
• Replies: 72
• Forum: UAD

read and weep...

 

[George Hatch]

do you think the quasi client defining the intended users and use of the appraisal report falls within the definition of independent?

You still don't get it. The appraiser is the one who is doing the intending. Whether they're writing the sentence freehand in a narrative format or using a form, the process of figuring out what they have to do in order to complete the assignment competently includes identifying the user and their expectations. Different users have different quirks and expectations and hotbuttons and appraisal policies.

If I have a client and intended users who don't spell out their expectations then I have a more discretion in my SOW than if they have extensive and demanding expectations. Regardless what those expectations are, the responsibility for meeting them is on me. It's still my appraisal.

Here is the sentence I use in every one of my reports and which clarifies my intent. In fact, I'll give you a screengrab of my template. These sentences are at the bottom of the comment block.
.

 

[djd09]

Thread 'By request: UAD vs Cert #23'

Aug 22, 2011

I shouldn't even have to flesh the premise of this discussion out - the thread title says it all. But because I'm a verbose gasbag I'll do it anyway.

A friend of mine called me up this morning to chat about this topic and asked me to post a thread here to submit the topic for your consideration.

On the one hand, Fannie/Freddie's infamous Cert #23 makes reference to the universe of off label uses that one of their reports "may" be used for, as well as noting, as an example, a couple some of these off-label intended users by groups. The GSEs never did us the courtesy of...

• George Hatch
• Replies: 72
• Forum: UAD

read and weep...

flip flop fish...watch him flip...see him flop

 

[George Hatch]

Thread 'By request: UAD vs Cert #23'

Aug 22, 2011

I shouldn't even have to flesh the premise of this discussion out - the thread title says it all. But because I'm a verbose gasbag I'll do it anyway.

A friend of mine called me up this morning to chat about this topic and asked me to post a thread here to submit the topic for your consideration.

On the one hand, Fannie/Freddie's infamous Cert #23 makes reference to the universe of off label uses that one of their reports "may" be used for, as well as noting, as an example, a couple some of these off-label intended users by groups. The GSEs never did us the courtesy of...

• George Hatch
• Replies: 72
• Forum: UAD

read and weep...

I don't flip flop. Every time you seek the gotcha you're always wrong about it. You've never been right once.

I was right then and I'm right now. What's different is that the GSEs literally misunderstood the meaning of intended user and went so far as to tell the ASB that they were wrong about the meaning of intended user. The ASB responded by providing a paragraph appraisers could use to clarify their intent.

The difference this time is that they clarified the disconnect between "may" vs appraiser's consent and intent. They literally clarified the distinction between the two concepts in the same sentence. Which all the critics seem to be highly motivated to gaslight.,

The problem with the word "may" is that some people are reading it as permission and indicating to the appraisers intent, whereas others are reading it as "might" - what someone might do. DW - who is an apex SME on both USPAP and GSE policies - has told you they mean "might", and they don't mean permission. It doesn't get any more authoritative than that.

If the issue ever goes to court the lawyers won't be able to say the GSEs meant "permission for off label uses/users"

 

[djd09]

the internet is forever...