- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Arkansas
I am torn by the subject. No one wants accused of petty professional backstabbing, but truth is appraisers can understand defects in reports far better than the public. It surely does mean that a frivolous complaint can be submitted however. Rice mentioned Arkansas. Please also note that they have a 3 year period from the date of the report to file a complaint. I wouldn't be opposed to a two year one. If you cannot find something to complain about before 2 or 3 years, then it ought be dismissed without consideration. Frequently, imho, these reports are held as threats against appraisers.
What I would not oppose would be a system where the complaintant had to disclose their name before any sanction be meted out but that name be withheld by the board. And if the complaintant is a Mortgage broker or banker, then they must disclose that to the person having the grievence files.
There is something wrong about not being able to confront your accusers. Secondly, I have never failed to have the concern about when such complaints are put forward that the reports are nitpicked in the same fashion some self-important reviewers nitpick them anyway. There are clear cases of severe errors of fact. There are deliberate attempts to inflate reports. But too many complaints even by appraisers seem to fall back upon judgment calls. What is an appropriate adjustment? What is "condition", what is "quality", what is "effective age". How 'similar' is 'similar'? Those kinds of judgments should always get great latitude among appraisers. It's like complaining about an engineer using steel to build a bridge because another engineer would have used concrete.
What I would not oppose would be a system where the complaintant had to disclose their name before any sanction be meted out but that name be withheld by the board. And if the complaintant is a Mortgage broker or banker, then they must disclose that to the person having the grievence files.
There is something wrong about not being able to confront your accusers. Secondly, I have never failed to have the concern about when such complaints are put forward that the reports are nitpicked in the same fashion some self-important reviewers nitpick them anyway. There are clear cases of severe errors of fact. There are deliberate attempts to inflate reports. But too many complaints even by appraisers seem to fall back upon judgment calls. What is an appropriate adjustment? What is "condition", what is "quality", what is "effective age". How 'similar' is 'similar'? Those kinds of judgments should always get great latitude among appraisers. It's like complaining about an engineer using steel to build a bridge because another engineer would have used concrete.
Last edited: