Change in Intended User/ Prior Services Comment

[Lil Rhody]

I bet you get 50/50 answers here

spot on
From what I have found so far, I don't think that this constitutes a new assignment. I'll keep checking until I find something definitive. Thanks again for your comments.

 

[J Grant]

I fail to see how whether it is a new assignment or not a new assignment would relieve the appraiser of providing a prior service disclosure in the report.

IT is a USPPAP requirement to provide a prior service in an appraisal report, whether that report is a new assignment or a revision of a prior assignment. rt.

 

[J Grant]

Thanks for commenting. I will try and clear things up a bit. My initial explanation was lacking and seems to be causing some confusion.

This is not an appraisal that I have developed, it is a commercial appraisal that I am reviewing. It is one appraisal out of six for a portfolio of 6 different properties. I am reviewing 1 of the appraisals for a commercial client and the other 5 appraisals are being reviewed by other reviewers.

The original appraisal was completed in November and a revised appraisal was provided yesterday with the only change being the date of the report and a change in the intended user, the client and value and effective date have remained the same. If the client were changed, this would be considered a new assignment and would require a prior services statement. I am questioning if this would be considered a new assignment with just the intended user changing.

After speaking with the client today, I was told that of the 5 other reviews, 2 of the reviewers requested that the appraiser provide a prior work statement and the other 3 did not make this request. For all 6 revised appraisals, the only changes were the intended users and the date of the report. The client asked me to try and verify if this constitutes a new assignment and I cannot find anything in USPAP that specifically addresses a change in intended user.

I hope this helps clarify my situation and question.

Reading this, imo if you deem it not a new assignment and rather a revised continuation of a same assignment, then no prior service disclosure would need to be provided.

 

[CGinMN]

Not an expert, but I would say a change to the intended user is a change to one of the assignment elements. A change to an assignment element is a new assignment and triggers prior services disclosure.

 

[CGinMN]

The thought is that knowing who the intended user is helps you identify the appraisal problem and determine the appropriate SOW to solve it. If you did a report for condemnation for a homeowner client, then later were asked to add the dept of transportation as an intended user, that could change how you identified the appraisal problem and SOW. Even if it doesn't change anything, the addition of the intended user is something the appraiser has to consider.

 

[Vermonter]

Not an expert, but I would say a change to the intended user is a change to one of the assignment elements. A change to an assignment element is a new assignment and triggers prior services disclosure.

According to the OP, the intended user hasn't changed, just the name. A revision isn't a new service unless you call it a new assignment because of the name change. Which I don't think it is

 

[CGinMN]

Rereading and it sounds like that’s an aside… I think a change in intended user’s name from “dept of transportation” to “state transportation dept” is not changing the intended user.

 

[sputnam]

In a revised appraisal where the intended user was changed but the client remained the same, is a prior services comment required? Does a change in intended user dictate a new assignment? I know a change in client does but could not find anything definitive in USPAP about a change in intended user.

Follow up question: If this is considered a new assignment, does it matter if the intended user that was changed is actually the same entity that just had a legal change of name?

Required? Maybe, maybe not. However, it can't hurt anything. Just put it in and go on to the next assignment.

 

[Tom D]

I'm confused, the client is the bank & borrower? So if the borrower decides to add the wife's name as another borrower, or just put her name instead. This is now a new appraisal?

 

[Lil Rhody]

Required? Maybe, maybe not. However, it can't hurt anything. Just put it in and go on to the next assignment.

Its not an appraisal that I developed. Its a report that I am reviewing.