• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Forum Sponsor - a la mode

QuickSource provides a single-source solution to easily import, compare, and manage data from multiple, credible sources in every report. See what the next game-changer is really all about.

Don't Know...should I Buy This?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Charlotte Dixon

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Delaware
I have had MCS since 1988 and my current version is 8.01. I have the ACI demo, 8.2. Now I see there's a new version and I've already loaded this one. Off to a bad start already!

This ACI appears to be very similar to MCS but I don't want to be without some forms like with my current MCS. Can't find a construction draw schedule anywhere in this demo. And, is this Recert of Value still a legal form? I thought it was not USPAP compliant.The old MCS DOS program had every form known to man and then some. Even now, for the construction draw schedule, we fire up the old DOS MCS just to get that form. Since there are 4 of us here now, I wonder how much this is all going to cost. Plus, I want Geolocator. My current Geo needs updating in 2 weeks to access the web. I have 2 other demos from other companies and I want to make a decision but am getting more confused. I've been told that one particular software company charges almost twice as much as others, but one doesn't pay for all the upgrades...it's automatic from the web. That sounds interesting.

I'm going to try this for awhile, and also one other product. Guess I want to be convinced. I've shelled a lot of money out over the years and don't want to buy something I'll be sorry for.
 

Jo Ann Meyer Stratton

Elite Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Arizona
If the Recertification of Value form is utilizing current market data--it is an Update, not a recertification of value--so the heading on the form is not compliant with USPAP. A Recertification of Value does not consider, analyze, involve, research, concern, etc, etc, etc, CURRENT market data. Your main question though--I personally like Day One, but then I have used it through all its dos, 16bit, 32bit forms, trials and tribulations since 1987 so it definitely what I am use to.
 

Charlotte Dixon

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Delaware
One question....why is the Recertification of Value in the forms selection if it should not be utilized? Jo Ann, I think I confused the other thread in referring to a 442 (the Final).....Senior moment there; sorry about that. Yesterday I had lunch with 4 cream-of-the-crop appraisers around here, and we discussed that Recert and our thread. Seems everybody uses it, here at least, and all lenders request it. Are you looking at the same Recert of Value that I am? Maybe not. Should I send it to you for discussion purposes? I believe you said there should be a second page added to that, if used? I'll go back and read the other thread. Thanks for your clarification.

Life was so easy when we typed these :( But, we'd never keep up at this pace, would we?
 

Jo Ann Meyer Stratton

Elite Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Arizona
It is the heading that is causing the problem--I have seen the form that ACI-Ala Mode-Day One produce for over eight years, it is in my software. And the heading has not been in compliance with USPAP for all those years and I have been yelling at Day One since 1997 about it, (I think they are finally listening) because of 2003 Advisory Opinion 3, although Statement 7 has been around since 1995. Software companies listen to their customers and create forms that appraisers request--so there are forms available in all software packages that are not in compliance with USPAP, Fannie Mae guidelines, HUD requirements, etc, etc, etc. And really should not be utilized, even if they are available. I am a very suspicious person--before I do something I check it out every way I can. And I will admit it took me about five years all together for the difference between update to an appraisal and recertification of value to finally sunk in. The other appraisers and I in my large office many years ago discontinued the opinion of value letters about 1992-even though USPAP came out in 1990 (appraiser chat rooms were not available at that time to learn). Then we started just filling out the bottom of the 442 about recertification of value till about 1994. After one of the appraisers took a current USPAP class at that time, we realized that Advisory G-3 had some very specific requirements--so we quit using the bottom of the 442 since it did not meet those requirements and wrote a letter that had everything that AO-G3 required--only problem was we didn't understand that if we were considering CURRENT market data, it was NOT a recertification of value, it was an UPDATE. We didn't like the recertification of value form that all the appraisal software came out with in about 1995, so continued to use our letter. Then when I got on appraiser chat rooms in 1997--after reading many, many postings about updates and recertifications of value it finally sunk in that our letter was fine except we should have been calling it an update to an appraisal because we were considering CURRENT market data. So I have been tilting at the update/recert windmill ever since.

Look at the definitions that use to be in Statement 7 of USPAP and was moved to Advisory Opinion 3 in 2003. If CURRENT market conditions are being considered, which is how you determine if the value has declined or not, then it is an Update to a prior assignment. A recertification of value does not change the original effective date. So the question of whether the value has declined or not can NOT be answered in a recertification of value because you can NOT look at any market activity since that original effective date for a rectification of value.

To add to the confusion of loan officers, appraisers and underwriters, some of the largest lenders in the country still have in their supplemental standards references to recertification of value and requiring current market activity. But USPAP takes precedence over client supplemental standards, the higher standard has to be followed, whether USPAP or the clients.

Also check out Fannie Mae's Section 201 of the 6/30/2002, which describes updates. Fannie Mae says it is an extension, but 2003 USPAP says it is a new assignment. And after all the dust settles, that is really the only change--USPAP and Fannie Mae have been talking about updates for years.

Advisory Opinion 3 in 2003 USPAP and Section 201 of Fannie Mae guidelines are what I am constantly referring to.

Search back in Appraisal Buzz articles for one that was an interview December 2, 2002 by Danny Wiley, Chair of the Appraisal Standards Board, where he discusses updates and recerts. Also the chief appraiser for LSI wrote a good article for their newsletter that was republished in the Appraisal Buzz about the first part of Feb.

And again, although the lender requests a "recert", if they want to know if the value has declined or not, the appraiser would provide an update to the client because the appraiser is looking at current market data. The Appraisal Update forms that the software companies have come out with lack intended use and user, so that has to be added. Compare that form to AO-3, option 3 requirements and can only be used if the original appraiser/appraisal firm and client are involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Top

AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks