First Domino Has Fallen

[Tejus]

This is a follow-up to the online user forum thread:

http://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/first-domino.211432/

Since submitting the earlier forum thread, the scope of the issue has widened from FHA Appraisals to all Appraisals. Due to the change in scope, this follow-up is included in the general forum.

See the attachments for details.

buene suerte.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I guess my #2 post from the referenced thread remains intact...?
First Domino

Seems to have created a "catch 22" situation... If FHA filed a complaint, you are toast even evoking this letter.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Very interesting read. I suppose the state agency has the ultimate authority as to interpreting laws and regulations as they apply to the state and individuals. Testing appliances, plumbing and electrical fixtures or systems is vague as it applies to appraisers. Running water and flushing toilets are not definitive tests for plumbing issues, for example. I agree with the state board.

 

[Meandering]

From the overview letter:


Once the complaint ruling is finalized, TALCB is required to rule similarly for future complaints which


cover the same topic.


Due to the significant impact on the Appraisal User Community, the TALCB Complaint ruling must be


distributed to the Appraisal User Community and related parties.


The TALCB complaint ruling essentially states:


- An Appraiser defines an assignment’s Scope of Work (SOW).


- The Appraiser must define the SOW to generate credible results.


- The Appraiser may limit the SOW to “determining value only”.


- The Appraiser may dismiss additional Client specified SOW requirements.



So much for assignment conditions.





.

 

[hastalavista]

This is from page 60 of the handbook (09/2015 version):



It seems the original report followed this overall directive.
I don't think it is necessary to add the "EAs" that the report did. Had the report simply added this excerpt above (and cited it) the rest of the language (which I presume is intended to limit appraiser liability) is superfluous.

If I were an investigator, the one issue I would have is the report stating it is using an EA regarding competency. I would have told the appraiser that such an EA isn't necessary if one were to simply quote the handbook (I don't need an EA to do the inspection of readily observable characteristics... it is part of the regular SOW which already limits what the inspection-expectations are).

And that is probably my biggest problem when I read reports with a bunch of liability disclaimers in them:
A. Usually, they are superfluous
B. Sometimes, they have technical contradictions (like using an EA and checking "as is"); but many times those technical contradictions are not material
C. For GSE forms, most of the liability disclaimers are not going to lower the appraiser's liability; they either completed the assignment correctly or they didn't; and no amount of liability-language is going to change that

 

[Tejus]

oops.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

Would probably be better off selling dominoes on Venice Beach.

 

[timd354]

This is a follow-up to the online user forum thread:

http://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/first-domino.211432/

Since submitting the earlier forum thread, the scope of the issue has widened from FHA Appraisals to all Appraisals. Due to the change in scope, this follow-up is included in the general forum.

See the attachments for details.

buene suerte.

Basically, the TALCB determined that your position and your complaint was a complete bunch of B.S. I find it interesting that the investigator's findings specifically mention your rantings online regarding the revised FHA valuation protocols and they obviously determined that you filed this complaint not because the appraiser did anything wrong but you filed the complaint as a transparent attempt to get a state appraiser board to undermine the new FHA valuation protocols. Thus, the TALCB not only determined that your complaint was nothing more than unadulterated BS, they apparently determined that you are a crackpot. It seems to me that they basically got it all about right.

The really sad part about this whole situation is that you threw some other appraiser under the bus and made him or her go through the ordeal of dealing with a board investigation even though that appraiser did not do anything that was worthy of a board complaint...all because you are peeved with the FHA and their appraisal requirements. What you did to that appraiser is absolutely despicable and disgusting.

Keep on writing back to the TALCB and complaining about the results of their investigation, I am sure that will convince the board that you are not actually a kook, lol.

Only a complete nut job would think that this complaint or investigation will have any effect our profession.

 

[Tejus]

I guess my #2 post from the referenced thread remains intact...?

Yes.
TALCB had two options: Uphold or Dismiss the complaint.
Both options have their pro's and con's. TALCB chose the most politically correct option which is to dismiss the complaint and try to downplay the significance of their ruling.
The TALCB ruling states the Appraiser defines the SOW and may dismiss client specified requirements.
This is a direct violation of USPAP. The
07_10_29_16_submittor_response_talcb_commissioner.pdf
attached doc identifies specific USPAP and Appraisal Foundation Voluntary Disciplinary Action Matrix references confirming this.
The TALCB ruling has undermined USPAP, HUD Handbook and state appraisal regulations.
TALCB has given the Appraiser a Get Out of Jail Free pass.
Due to the significance of the TALCB ruling, the TALCB oversight organizations (Tx Gov Staff and ASB) were requested to review and affirm the TALCB ruling.

It seems the original report followed this overall directive.

The Handbook includes the FHA Appraiser Roster definition you referenced, but it also includes page after page after page which state the Appraiser "must" perform specific tasks and analysis which are beyond determining value and commonly associated with a home inspection.

The Handbook author did a poor job identifying the FHA Appraisal SOW and has conflicting statements in the Handbook. The Handbook author has already acknowledged this and tried to back out the unrealistic requirements in the 2016 version, but all he has done is create a bigger mess with more conflicts.

This has led to much bigger problems for HUD/FHA (and the entire appraisal industry).

The regulatory agency (TALCB) has ruled the Appraiser may define the assignment SOW to be determining value only and the additional client specified tasks may be dismissed by the Appraiser. This includes all the additional tasks and analysis specified in the HUD Handbook.

All the discussion about the excessive FHA assignment inspection requirements becomes a moot point since the Appraiser may dismiss them.

 

[timd354]

All the discussion about the excessive FHA assignment inspection requirements becomes a moot point since the Appraiser may dismiss them.

LOL...You're going off the rails on a crazy train... An appraiser cannot simply dismiss the FHA inspection requirements that are outlined in the FHA valuation protocol and no rational and intelligent person who reads the TALCB's dismissal of your obviously unfounded complaint would reach such a conclusion.