Eating Crow, Not Southern Fried Chicken

[Carnivore]

Lee Ann,

With all do respect, Your post does not make any sense.

 

[Farm Gal]

Andrew thanks for your kind remark.... I will fix it..

Just too tired and should keep my fingers OFF the keyboard. :redface:

Family illness is draining.

 

[Don Orttenburger]

I thought this was answered before and the answer was:

The inspection and data it generates belongs to the appraiser, only the report and its conclusions belong to the client so if a 2nd mortgage company wants a Retype they can't have it. What they can have is a new appraisal using the data from the first inspection, no new inspection or new date of inspection. If the subject has burned down or disappeared into a sink hole after the inspection date is not my concern or respnsability any more so than if the same disaster occured after my delivery to the first company. Of course this assumes protection of confidentuality.

Now a new point : do you want to have 2 clients on one subject, no problem for USPAP, but you still have to answer to 2 sets of underwriters. Consider this: the borrower closes with the 2nd company after you jump through some underwriting hoops and now he goes back to the first company and gets a refinance or equity loan and they want you to jump through some new hoops. I bring this up because we always seem to figure that the first client relationship is a dead issue, it ain't, we still have a client relationship there. So do you give a deep discount on the fee for the 2nd report or not. Maybe the answer is to get a release of the client relationship from the first client in return for a discount on the 2nd report. This is something the borrower or 2nd client would request for the 1st client, not me.

 

[Ross (CO)]

So, do you see what ultimately happened in Ray's situation ? Client B went out and got someone ELSE to go do a NEW APPRAISAL ! Happens all the time, that way. So, why didn't Client B just say, you know what, I think I'll use the report we already have here in our hands, and thanks to this conversation, Ray, you've just helped me to save a few dollars here. ....By the way Mr. Client, if your u/w writer has any questions or concerns I will NOT be taking their phone calls. Two years from now, if the borrower stops paying you, my report in your portfolio will be absolutely useless paper.....and I will wish you the best.....because you are NOT a legitimate user of the report. You will find your company name mentioned NOwhere within that report.

Still scratching my head as how the AI rep stepped in to referree this scenario. We have been primed for this nuance, for so many of the trailing months of 2003, all set and geared in OUR favor, and allowing US more control over those people who have traditionally given themselves "client rights" when they had NONE. While we know it will still take years for the client-pool to catch on to the change in protocol that we now have to support our reasons for NOT re-assigning anything, it just goes to show you that there are NO authoritataive voices informing our clients and their field "agents" about what can and can not be done. They will continue to seek any weak-links in our ranks, and take all advantage where they can. When they can not "win", they act in spite, and go out and do what they know they have to do.......get a new report, with their name on it, and recognizing them as a legitimate user of the report as confirmed by a formal order, done for an agreed fee.

I see no shades-of-grey in the "no re-assigns" moments that will still come about. Yet, many of us will still try to create shades-of-grey as folks try to iron out the aspects of possible release letters, inspections or re-inspections, should massive fee discounts be extended, and the fact that they might "know" something about the property that has to be put in a confidentiality lock-box ! The past was the past, and new is new ! Seize that gift, and do not try to confuse the two......and maybe Client B will grow up and act like a mature professional in the process. He/she really wants to become a Client A....but they act as if they do not know how to do that....and it is our opportunity to guide them along the pathway. Not all opportunites come to fruition, however, as Ray's Client B demonstrated with him. Oh, well.

 

[Stone]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to do it.

 

[Mike Simpson]

"Still scratching my head as how the AI rep stepped in to referree this scenario."

THAT'S THE $64,000 QUESTION IN MY BOOK!!!

 

[Michigander]

Ray, I wonder if you really did have a call from Stephanie Coleman. She has a pretty distinctive voice, so please think about that (I emailed you directly but you must not have gotten that). I've found her to be the most helpful and knowledgable person, but she has never called me unless I left her a message (she is extremely busy). As far as I can tell, you aren't a member, associate or otherwise, of the AI, so it does seem a little odd that you got this call......

 

[Carnivore]

Rachel and Mike,

I agree, the omissions in Coleman's advice to the lender suggest that it was a shill. Thats also backed up by a company that rates very very low among Professionals like Ray and others at this forum. They whine about everything and could care less about the rules. The simply dont have a reputation like BOA or Wachovia ect ect

FTR, I never have done work for them. Thanks the lord

 

[Ray Miller]

Yes, it was her. She called me, then I call her back, the she reached me on my cell phone.

I think she understood how hot, Ameriquest and I got with each other over this.

I must have also missunderstood or the manager did not say they wanted the report retro dated in our exchange. I was under the understanding that he wanted a transfer of lenders.

I think after he talk to Ms. Colemen, he found out the report could be retro dated, I would not need to go, back out, would not need new comparables. So he could get a retype for around $25. Which I am not into retypes. By the way this loan is over $500,000.00 so there is a good commission.

I know they were not wanting to pay a full fee, which had me uptight.

I also knew that F & M Bank would not release the report to them.

I think they were ready to fund the loan and the borrower walked away to AmeriQuest, because he was thinking he got a better deal.

 

[Dan Leggett]

If you think you understand, it's obvious you're confused.

Can somebody explain the how's & whys of Roger's situation to me? Please type real slow.