Class Action For The Theft Of Appraisers’ Data

[DWiley]

The difference is, as appraisers we pay the MLS for access, and since we join as an appraiser, they are aware we use MLS data in appraisal reports.

.

OK. How, exactly, is that different? Lenders pay for our reports, with both the lender and the appraiser being fully aware of the permission given related to the data in the report (similar to my MLS agreement).

If appraisers wanted to profit from re-sale of data, then they should have jumped on the appraiser national database back in the late 1990s, but they rejected that idea. They were even told back then that if they didn't create a national database that Fannie would, but no one wanted to believe that.

 

[DWiley]

Condition and quality are your opinions and intellectual property, which you agreed could be sent to data collection agencies when you signed the report that included Cert 21. Don't want to agree to that? Simple. Don't do work on Fannie forms.

 

[Meandering]

Sign up if you have an interest

http://appraisersblogs.com/stolen-appraisers-data-class-action#comment-23253

Appraisals NOT Required

Oh dang, looks like demand manipulation. So much for those "free market" guys and your competition with "other products".

Last appraiser left, shut off the lights and close the door.

.

 

[J Grant]

OK. How, exactly, is that different? Lenders pay for our reports, with both the lender and the appraiser being fully aware of the permission given related to the data in the report (similar to my MLS agreement).

If appraisers wanted to profit from re-sale of data, then they should have jumped on the appraiser national database back in the late 1990s, but they rejected that idea. They were even told back then that if they didn't create a national database that Fannie would, but no one wanted to believe that.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this issue so will give a fast off the cuff answer...seems like this suit is more about preventing others from re selling our data ( beyond data our opinions/conclusions ) outside of the intended appraiser/client/user distribution (including data collection agencies ) we agreed to in a URAR, rather than appraisers trying to make $ from re sale of data. But I don't know on what grounds the lawyers might base a suit ...I'm not a lawyer I just play one on TV...(lol...I love the ad for TV doctors on TV....)

As far as how it differs from our agreement with MLS, already explained it , when I pay for MLS yearly I sign to abide by an agreement with them where I can use MLS data in appraisals, if I went outside that agreement and started re selling MLS data to other parties or using it to get listings etc ( a use outside my agreement )the local board and possibly NAR would be all over it....

I think the word "data" is over used in appraisals as a catch all term. Nobody "owns" certain data...much of what is on MLS is available on public records. Data to me indicates a bunch of facts (whether correct or not) about a property, facts that can be available from multiple sources. Look up a property now on teh internet by address and a bunch of possible data sources for it pop up- from NLS ( which is paid subscription but agents paste the info on internet), to public records to Zillow etc.

What is called "data " on appraisals can just be data, but also be something more...incorporation judgments and opinions and efforts in vetting and verification. That is appraisal results, not just "data" so what is a " data collection agency" collecting, or acquiring and then re selling, ( or used to replace appraisals in their own proprietary product of an evaluation or whatever they call it..)

Again, when I abide by my agreement with MLS, I use their data ( half of which is wrong anyway ) on my appraisals, I am not re selling it or using it to compete with them in RE sales or listing effort.

Is a converted garage to bedroom adding to the living area SF? Appraisers's "data" on that might include their opinion from personal inspection, and MLS might say different sf and public records/tax assessor different.

 

[Meandering]

Right now,

Appraisers Blog is only asking people with an interest to sign up for more information. It is not a commitment to do anything, but rather is a test of interest to see if appraisers want anything done.

Given the recent FDIC post of when appraisals are not required, any new "appraiser shortage" will most likely be the final nail in the coffin.

As they used to say on this forum often........

For the want of a nail...............

sign up if you have an interest, considering all of the companies that have absconded with your intellectual property, not just one company.


Be the nail that is not missing.


.

.

 

[DWiley]

As far as how it differs from our agreement with MLS, already explained it , when I pay for MLS yearly I sign to abide by an agreement with them where I can use MLS data in appraisals, if I went outside that agreement and started re selling MLS data to other parties or using it to get listings etc ( a use outside my agreement )the local board and possibly NAR would be all over it....

Yes, and when you sign a Fannie form you are, among other things, agreeing to allow the lender to send the data to a data collection service. So, doing that is within the agreed upon terms. It is not acting outside what has been agreed to. Now, if you want to discuss how many appraiser sign certifications without reading what is actually in them, that is a different story.

Why have such cases never made any headway? Simple. A judge would laugh at an appraiser who signed a report with Cert 21 in it and then tried to claim that the data was "stolen." What has been given away cannot be "stolen."

 

[J Grant]

Yes, and when you sign a Fannie form you are, among other things, agreeing to allow the lender to send the data to a data collection service. So, doing that is within the agreed upon terms. It is not acting outside what has been agreed to. Now, if you want to discuss how many appraiser sign certifications without reading what is actually in them, that is a different story.

Why have such cases never made any headway? Simple. A judge would laugh at an appraiser who signed a report with Cert 21 in it and then tried to claim that the data was "stolen." What has been given away cannot be "stolen."

Maybe this suit will go nowhere too, maybe these lawyers will take a different angle. Who knows. I signed up because in a CA why not, cost me nothing but am spending way too much time on it here now. Appraisers on a fannie form agree to allow the lender to distribute report to a data collection agency. Which seems different than the lender or some other party appropriating the content in appraisal for purposes outside the intended use. in Fannie form

 

[DWiley]

Maybe this suit will go nowhere too, maybe these lawyers will take a different angle. Who knows. I signed up because in a CA why not, cost me nothing but am spending way too much time on it here now. Appraisers on a fannie form agree to allow the lender to distribute report to a data collection agency. Which seems different than the lender or some other party appropriating the content in appraisal for purposes outside the intended use. in Fannie form

Seriously? You think it is logical to argue that when I gave permission for my data to be sent to a data collection service, I didn't know they were going to do anything with the data? LOL

There is also a second big issue. You referred to theft of "our data." What makes it yours?

I was just looking at an appraisal report on my home. What data in there belongs to the appraiser? One must have ownership before one can claim theft. The comp data was from MLS and public records. How does an appraiser own that? As for the subject property, well that is MY house. If anyone "owns" the subject property data it is ME, not the appraiser

There are very clear reasons why this issue has gone nowhere, despite being a "hot topic" for going on three decades now. It is unfortunate that some who wish to paint themselves as some sort of warrior for our profession keeping fanning the flames on these emotional issues. It is just a waste of time and resources that could be better spent trying to doing something actually helpful. They are not stupid. They know the facts, but some are just concerned about building their own social media personalities and creating divides in the profession rather than working for a common good.

 

[J Grant]

Agree imo a waste of time... if attorneys want to waste THEIR time pursuing it and it costs me nothing, I put my name on it. Maybe these new attorneys are like OJ's dream team and have a different angle. I have no idea why attorneys would want to waste time either. Maybe some corporations settle a CL suit just to be rid of a nuisance. Probably why most of them pay around $18 to each claimant and attorneys take a big chunk.

I've put my name on consumer CL suits and got dinky amounts, $20 or stupid like that ( probably because millions of CL members) But I once got $6,000 from a RE related class action suit regarding a bank! So you never know.

 

[Overimprovement]

Yes, and when you sign a Fannie form you are, among other things, agreeing to allow the lender to send the data to a data collection service. So, doing that is within the agreed upon terms. It is not acting outside what has been agreed to. Now, if you want to discuss how many appraiser sign certifications without reading what is actually in them, that is a different story.

Why have such cases never made any headway? Simple. A judge would laugh at an appraiser who signed a report with Cert 21 in it and then tried to claim that the data was "stolen." What has been given away cannot be "stolen."

While it is true Cert 21 expressly allows the distribution of an appraisal report to essentially anyone, does this also grant the receiver the right resell the conclusions drawn by the appraiser, such as condition, quality, finished basement space, etc? Letting someone SEE a report is different than allowing someone else to RESELL information contained within the report.

In general, IP laws in this country freely allow the viewing of items--think movies. But once someone (even if they have purchased the movie or product) attempts to profit themselves by it, that is where the line gets crossed.

I can invite 500 people to my house (in my 14'x20' living room, would be interesting) to watch a movie I just purchased, or some sports event on cable, but if I charge even one red cent for admission, I am breaking the law. Courts have generally sided with the owners of those IP rights.

What makes an appraisal report different?