FIRREA ?

[jtrotta]

Austin;

had to read your post a couple of times, but I think your example is wrong- if the Buyer of the property hires you for an opinion of value and the Seller wants to know, the potential Buyer can pass the info along OR the Seller has to hire a different appraiser, as your "Confidentiality" to the Buyer becomes questionable (what Ethical bridge are you crossing here :?: USPAP :?: FNMA :?: ). You are using a different example than what Brad is suggesting.

it would appear that you & Brad are addressing different issues-just my opinion. In Brads example, he is correct in approach- new Client / new appraisal / new Fee (What that Fee is, is up to you)

8)

 

[bradellis]

jtrotta,

Thanks and quite correct. It depends upon intended use and intended users. Of course my example was talking about lending clients.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Youse guys can do what ever you feel comfortable with...I will ALWAYS get a release from the first client before I change the name of the client on a report.

How do we know the intended use of the report has been completed?

More importantly, how do we are going to be paid? More than once I have been told, "oh, the original client collected the fee and you will have to get it from them".

Thus sayth the old guy!

 

[Paul Ness MAI]

Steve finally brought out the crux of the whole point here, and what I was thinking about as I read down this thread. That is...the intended use. Until the intended use is consummated, you have a fiduciary relationship with the first client (lender or not) and must be released from that before you can appraise the property for someone else for the same intended use. You're not a "dual agency" appraiser, to coin a phrase from our realtor fiends, err friends, and you don't want to be in a position of having to serve two masters. The release is for your benefit.

Fruther, I agree with another poster here that said they disclose the original client in the report if they change the addressee. Otherwise it is misleading.

 

[Farm Gal]

Paul:

Like you all, I have something of a problem with the finer points of this, however a few of the very specific questions that I (and others) asked in front of those fine folks included a whole series of scenarios, for example:

Appraiser Mike performed an appraisal on a property known to be coming up at auction, and was then approached by a seond individual wishing the same property appraised. Appraiser Mike can perform the same work, effectively changing only the client name, not even requiring a second inspection, and be perfectly in compliance with USPAP. I have to agree that this may not be good business practice, but in terms of USPAP as defined in front of me the only way the appriaser could get into trouble is by disclosing that he had already done the work for a specific other party! Now if the appraiser CHOSES to acquire a release he can then disclose to cleint "B" that an appraisal was done for "A" but not otherwise.

With regard to second mortgage situations the second lender can LEGALLY use the original appraisal~

I am going to try to avoid such situations, but this is as per the class... :?

 

[Steve Owen]

Le Ann, in the class I took a couple of years ago, the instructor said that you could not do a second appraisal under any circumstances (without a client release) if the value was the same as the first appraisal. The reasoning was that there was not way to do so without disclosing the value you got before. I didn't agree with him then, and I still don't. (I think you can do a second appraisal if the intended use has been fulfilled and if the value happens to be the same there is not problem.) BUT, it is interesting to note that that is how one USPAP instructor interpreted it.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Does that sound like a reason they are requiring federally certified USPAP instructors now?

 

[Steve Owen]

It's worse, Mike. The guy was an MIA teaching their full class for certification. Come to think of it, it may have been more than a couple of years ago. I covered it with the USPAP instructor that I really like and she clarified the intended user/intended use stuff to the point I actually think I understand it now. (She was also the one who suggested putting a comment in any re-addressed report saying it was done for a previous client to avoid being misleading.)

 

[Charlotte Dixon]

How confusing this all is.......after we were drilled on "when the appraiser/client relationship ends".....There are just too many gray areas in this business. No wonder everyone's getting sued!

 

[Jim McGrath]

Larry:

You can in fact do a NEW appraisal for the NEW client, with the original effective date, and a new signature date.
or better yet:

All this was news to me, but hearing it from relaible sources in front of many witnesses means I am comfortable with this news. I will try to find the old post where others (including USPAP instructors) chipped in with opinions and other source documents.


Regards,
Lee Ann

Lee Ann, in fact, this has always been legal. When the purpose of the first appraisal has ended, a second appraisal can be done for the borrower. While many appraisers argue that it can't be done, it is spelled out in the USPAP. And as the first appraisal was done for a specific lender, when the borrower goes to a different lender, the purpose of that appraisal is done.

Jim