Court Appointed Assignment Scenario

[Elliott]

Kevin,
"Punt" I think its too messy. I always like to keep my skirts clean.
I had one where the HO called about a slide issue and I quoted a
fee for the report. Couple years later, a US Asst Attorney calls and
wants an appraisal for the US Coast Guard. First I don't like working
for federal types, but I bailed because I talked to the owner (but they
hadn't retained me). I like simple stuff.

 

[PL1957]

Kevin, if the original report done for the wife was for market value, where would you see the conflict if the original appraiser now did an assignment for the court for market value? If market value is market value, why would there be a conflict? Remember, if the appraiser is complying with USPAP, he is not being an advocate for anything other than his value.

That being said, prudence would prevent me from taking on the court appointed assignment unless all parties were aware of my previous involvement.

 

[Kevin A. Spellman]

If you were the husband, would you accept the findings from the wife’s appraiser now representing the court? Would you believe the report for the wife and the new report for the court would be significantly different? The time frame is less than eight months and the price level is under $350,000. The appraiser will be writing his report in respect to his previous findings.

The court wanted a third opinion and will be receiving the same opinion from the same appraiser.

I proposed this question to this forum as I have not been exposed to this scenario. The husband wants me to appraise the property, but the court does not know the wife’s appraiser is now the court appraiser. The argument will continue over the opinion of the value in court.

I just believe the appraiser should have not accepted the assignment from the court; the wife has a client relationship with this appraiser.

When there is an argument of value the court believes a third service provider of valuation could solve the problem. I do not see a third appraisal service provider in this scenario. The husband has to pay half of the appraisal fee to the wife’s original appraiser for this court assign appraisal service.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Kevin,
After reading your posts I have changed my mind. Quite frankly you feel very uncomfortable about this assignment for a variety of reasons. Doing a consulting assignment for the husband will still expose you to potential court testimony. Anything you do for the husband is discoverable and you need to keep that in mind.
I think you are very concerned about all the reports that are flying around out there and all that could fly around, and honestly, I dont think you wish to have your report scrutinized to that degree by all that could come involved.
Simply decline the assignment at this point. Its apparent your concerns are such that you will be looking over your shoulder at each turn.
Many of us would see this as an opportunity to show the court exactly what we can do. To have a judge believe in you is a very good thing, however, you have to have pretty thick skin because everyone here is going to be cross examined to the max. I personally think the only one in jeopardy is the other appraiser who didnt tell the court of their conflict. Be that as it may, Im not sure you see the opportunity in that and I really think you are very reluctant to even accept the assignment. I can tell how you are having this argument with yourself.
Simply say no and let the court sort this out.

I wish you well.

 

[Kevin A. Spellman]

I will most likely refuse this assignment. I thought this scenario was so unique I wanted to share it with this forum. Our business experience within our industry is so different from most professions. Sharing this scenario could help other understand how our industry functions outside the lending industry.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I will most likely refuse this assignment. I thought this scenario was so unique I wanted to share it with this forum. Our business experience within our industry is so different from most professions. Sharing this scenario could help other understand how our industry functions outside the lending industry.

Kevin its a very good post and I thank you for putting it here. We all have different levels of comfort that is for sure. It also shows you how some others run their business. Sometimes, my posts come across as a bit harsh, and I apologize to you for that. I would much rather our profession be full of appraisers like yourself that have serious ethical concerns rather than those that have serious ethical issues which appears may be the case with the other appraiser.
I see a great opportunity in this assignment for you but you are quite reluctant and that should tell you its best to decline if thats how you feel.
I sincerely wish you the best.

 

[Webbed Feet]

<....... snip......>
I just disagree with the appraiser accepting an assignment from the court where he is already has a client relationship with the wife for the same purpose.

Mr. Spellman,

After reading this thread, and knowing about all the many other threads about our industry ability to accept a new assignment from a different "Lender / Client B" for refinance assignments... that are for the same purpose...... I am left with a thought.... The thought is that you must not believe very much in what is said under Standards Rule 2-3 and required signed minimum certifications. Because I would say that any appraiser that feels compelled to turn down an assignment, soley because they had a past appraiser / client relationship for the same purpose with a different party, absolutely did not mean what they signed when they signed those certifications.

The appraiser was not an advocate for the wife. The appraiser is not an advocate for the court. The problem, at least as far as if one believes in those signed certifications, is not any past appraiser / client relationship. Does a prior work bias an appraiser for a future work on the same property using the same effective date if no new market data presents itself to present a difference between current or retrospective results? .. Well, yeah!.. Duh!.. We are supposed to be advocates for our own work.

The problem is the court should have understood that something was rotten in Denmark between the appraisal for the prior refinance versus the appraisal for the divorce performed three months later. My opinion is courts seriously need to get away from using a "tie breaker" third appraisal or even viewing it that way. It's not a "tie," somebody did rotten work in the first place. The courts need to start finding out which appraisal is a piece of ****, then tossing that one out. Getting an additional appraisal that is good work is fine, but remotely considering any crap in the process should not be. Courts need to be ordering reviews in such cases, or due to what is going on in mortgage purpose appraisals, refuse to accept them for anything at all.

Webbed.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Mr. Spellman,

After reading this thread, and knowing about all the many other threads about our industry ability to accept a new assignment from a different "Lender / Client B" for refinance assignments... that are for the same purpose...... I am left with a thought.... The thought is that you must not believe very much in what is said under Standards Rule 2-3 and required signed minimum certifications. Because I would say that any appraiser that feels compelled to turn down an assignment, soley because they had a past appraiser / client relationship for the same purpose with a different party, absolutely did not mean what they signed when they signed those certifications.

The appraiser was not an advocate for the wife. The appraiser is not an advocate for the court. The problem, at least as far as if one believes in those signed certifications, is not any past appraiser / client relationship. Does a prior work bias an appraiser for a future work on the same property using the same effective date if no new market data presents itself to present a difference between current or retrospective results? .. Well, yeah!.. Duh!.. We are supposed to be advocates for our own work.

The problem is the court should have understood that something was rotten in Denmark between the appraisal for the prior refinance versus the appraisal for the divorce performed three months later. My opinion is courts seriously need to get away from using a "tie breaker" third appraisal or even viewing it that way. It's not a "tie," somebody did rotten work in the first place. The courts need to start finding out which appraisal is a piece of ****, then tossing that one out. Getting an additional appraisal that is good work is fine, but remotely considering any crap in the process should not be. Courts need to be ordering reviews in such cases, or due to what is going on in mortgage purpose appraisals, refuse to accept them for anything at all.

Webbed.

Webbed,
It has been my experience, particularly in a bench trial, that a judge will just about accept anything as evidence. Now whether they will consider it in their final analysis is a different story. Judges have a very fine line to walk as to simply tossing out evidence and much more latitude as to what they consider in chambers.
I personally think there is a conflict of interest for the original appraiser and I would think the attorneys would think so also, whether there is bias or not .. it doesnt matter. The original appaiser has a preconceived notion as to what the property may be worth, and certainly knows what they put on it just three months earlier.
An independent appraiser would not have such knowledge and frankly can often be a great friend to the court.
Had I been in Mr Spellmans position, I would have accepted the assignment in a heart beat and never wanted to see the original reports. I can do that prior to trial if thats what it takes, but Id present my own analysis for the court and let the chips fall where they may.
I wouldnt have hesitated for a moment to accept it.

 

[Kevin A. Spellman]

Just as a note, neither report was entered as evidence; just their opinion of value for their assets was given. The husband and wife disagree by a $100,000. The court was seeking a third opinion. They will most likely receive a replication of value from the first report and I do not believe the court is receiving a third opinion. The court is not seeking value from either the husband or the wife.

If I do an appraisal for the husband and the court is seeking an appointed appraiser’s services, I do not believe my services will have value for the husband.

 

[KenRossman]

In my experience - hundreds of appraisals for bench trials, many by court appointment, Judges don't order "third" appraisals as tie breakers. If one report is credible & the other not they will typically throw out the BS appraisal and adopt the value (or substitute their "adjusted" value) estimated in the one they deem to be credible. If the judge doesn't believe either appraisal to be credible they will typically throw out both and order a third appraisal from an appraiser they trust.

I have on occasion been appointed by court order to appraise a property I had previously appraised, but never as part of the same action as described in this thread by the OP. Mine were usually for a different IU done in the past. I would always contact the judge immediately to advise that I had previously appraised the subject and described the circumstances.

It would be the judges call whether to cancel or go forward.