Contract Review - Part Two

[CANative]

The A to the Q did not say "no, it is not a new assignment."

It said: "USPAP would not mandate treating the request as a new assignment."

I think appraisers on the forum are often victims of overreliance on forum anecdotes.

 

[Webbed Feet]

<....... snip.......>
I think it is interesting to note that as long as the prior effective date has not changed, no new assignment has begun.

Ms. Tierman,

LOL, me thinks you better read that again! .... Saying USPAP does not mandate treating something as something, is also saying USPAP does not stop anyone from going ahead and treating it as that very same something that is not mandated.

So in otherwords, they sidestepped the question. And the answer makes no sense in the face of a already satisfied engagement agreement with the client. It is not a case of a client claiming the work is not satisfactory from the prior engagement or asking for a prior engagement element to be completed. It's a completely new client request for consultation.

Webbed.

 

[CANative]

It is not a case of a client claiming the work is not satisfactory from the prior engagement or asking for a prior engagement element to be completed. It's a completely new client request for consultation.

So accept it as a request for a post appraisal consultation if you like. Or a new assignment if you like. Or analyzing new information after the effective date with a new report date if you like. Or tell the client to pound sand if you like.

USPAP allows flexibility. It has to. It's only 100 pages or so. How can you cram the entire real estate market and everything that goes on it in it under every conceivable permutation in 100 pages? I think USPAP is a brilliant piece of work.

 

[Mary Tiernan]

How is their answer any different from this one (December 2007 Q&A):

Changing the Scope of Work after the Report has been Submitted
Question:
Sometimes after submitting my appraisal report, my client will ask me to perform
additional work. This can mean looking at more or different comparables or developing
another approach. Do these requests for additional work create a new assignment?

Response:
No. Requests to perform additional research or analysis change the scope of work, but do
not create a new assignment. The additional work can be performed as part of the original assignment. The appraiser may decide, as a business decision, to treat the request for additional research and analysis as a new assignment, but it is not required.

So why are you guys so hung up on not reopening an assignment?

 

[Bama Bayou]

I for one must by "out-of-step" because what the ASB offered as the response to the question regarding the analysis of the revised contract of sale was (and is) my position.

I'm dancing to the same tune. The only thing changing is the date of the report due to new information (the new sales contract), not the effective date.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Stone]

I think appraisers on the forum are often victims of overreliance on forum anecdotes.

There is some truth to this, IMO.

The content of the Q&A hardly seemed to fit the content of the OP.

 

[Lee Lansford]

...

So why are you guys so hung up on not reopening an assignment?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Hamlet]

So accept it as a request for a post appraisal consultation if you like. Or a new assignment if you like. Or analyzing new information after the effective date with a new report date if you like. Or tell the client to pound sand if you like.

USPAP allows flexibility. It has to. It's only 100 pages or so. How can you cram the entire real estate market and everything that goes on it in it under every conceivable permutation in 100 pages? I think USPAP is a brilliant piece of work.

So the appraiser who doesn’t want to take on the never ending assignments after the results have been delivered has nothing to show the LO that they aren’t just being mean and grouchy, because just like comp checks, everyone else does it.

We need clarity from USPAP not ambiguity.

 

[CANative]

An appraiser probably is being mean and grouchy and I don't blame them. I get mean and grouchy when a client pesters me with a never ending appraisal.

What's that got to do with TAF and USPAP. These are business decisions.

 

[Couch Potato]

Mike, your link is "OK", but the AF web code does not appear to follow WC3 standards.

That's ironic:icon_mrgreen:

The link gray screens under Safari on my Mac. Safari adheres most rigidly to the web standards of the three big browsers, IE, FF & Safari.

Just for kicks, I tried Firefox and it couldn't preview the PDF either on the Mac platform, but could do so with Firefox on XP. Almost certainly a problem with their vendor taking web standards short cuts in favor of the predominant OS application, IE and/or MS OS (XP, etc)

I didn't find the questions to be surprising. They seemed reasonable, under the regulatory paradigm and bureaucratic mindset facing the appraisal profession.

Eventually, questions will be asked about the behavior of buyers and sellers, and incredibly, a formulaic answer will appear. That will signal the end is near

That's W3C.

It may be a problem with the way you have your computer set to deal with PDF files. The link works fine on my Mac in Safari. I bet if you check your download location, you will find the PDF waiting for you to view. (PDF pages can be set to view in the browser of independently.)

An appraiser probably is being mean and grouchy and I don't blame them. I get mean and grouchy when a client pesters me with a never ending appraisal.

What's that got to do with TAF and USPAP. These are business decisions.

Just an appraiser with no backbone wanting to say, "USPAP made me do it" rather than simply saying they want more money for the additional work.

It is not being greedy to want to be paid for your work!