Certification 25 3.6

[George Hatch]

You got that right. Forever. Including that thread and this thread.

I notice that you carefully curated that screengrab without including the rest of my explanation which extends into the next couple paragraphs. I interpret that as a bad faith effort to mischaracterize my explanation. Not a lie, exactly, but as close to one as you could get. That's a response that will live on the internet, too.

What do you think it says about your reasoning when you have to mischaracterize and lie about what someone says in order to make that argument?

 

[djd09]

a lie is as good as the truth if they believe it...there are countless cert 23 threads...so how many times have you and frank signed off on cert 23...i guessing zero

 

[George Hatch]

People should go back and read for themselves the entirety of that post because I provided a lengthy explanation on the impossibility of illogically deeming everyone an intended user. Read the explanation I provided back then and decide for themselves whether the current cert can be read to mean exactly the same thing as the previous cert.

You weren't here back then so you don't know. We went hard at Fannie during the exposure draft over this and a couple other issues and they just proceeded to do what they do anyway. Partly because they actually thought they understood USPAP better than the ASB.

As for how many C23s I've signed, I have performed a lot of appraisal assignments in the current form before developing my own forms. But when I used them I also included the clarification about intended user, right down to explicitly naming the client and (if applicable) the other intended users. Nobody reading one my reports could have thought that my intended users extended any further than as explicitly named.

 

[Tom D]

Just because i say you can't give my appraisal to anyone else prevented that happenning in the past, yeah. I gave the appraisal to the client only. Is there a law that says they can't share it with the world. It was originally stated to say, this is being done only for mortgage purposes, for only this client. It's not meant for someone else's purpose.

And what could fannie do to the 4th viewer of the same report, nothing. And how am i liable for that report being given out by your client. I don't see this as any concern as to actually myself not being involved in the future distribution by me personally.

Maybe fannie put it in to tell the home owner, there is no more privity with this report. So how am i liable. USPAP will soon re define all the new viewers of the report. I believe the appraial is the property of the lender, do they follow USPAP. It is funny that they had to make it a law that the lender had to give a copy to the borrower.

 

[George Hatch]

Appraisers perform appraisals for less-than-reputable clients all the time. That doesn't make the appraiser responsible for ANY decision (let alone all of them) that those users make WRT the appraisal report. The appraiser is responsible for what they actually did and subject to their stated assumptions and limitations.

If an appraiser actually thought that they were automatically in violation of USPAP by merely performing an appraisal assignment for an imperfect or corrupt client or intended user then they should find a different occupation. Even bad people have legitimate uses for good appraisals.

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

a lie is as good as the truth if they believe it...there are countless cert 23 threads...so how many times have you and frank signed off on cert 23...i guessing zero

Guessed wrong.

My records indicate the last 1004 reports I completed with signed certifications were in mid-2010. My exit from the Fannie/Freddie world was a result of the original imposition of UAD. Since the Fannie Mae 1004/Freddie Mac 70 was available in March 2005, I signed quite a few. All, of course, had clarifying language within respect to intended use and intended user.