First Domino Has Fallen

[residentialguy]

Alan, I agree that FHA's wording sucks...but the end does not justify the means you're using.

 

[Howard Klahr]

Can you "run the DW" and know that it is working

Yes

Unfortunately, FHA's vague orders put appraisers in a precarious position of liability.

The issue is neither fortunate nor unfortunate. Just one of acceptance of the assignment or to not accept the assignment. If you do not feel that the directions are clear or within your ability to perform, the decline the assignment. It is not a complicated issue.

 

[timd354]

This is exactly what the TALCB ruled. Have you read the doc attachments ?

TALCB Commissioner quotes from the 05 doc attachment (I even highlighted this in the attached doc):

Based on the plain language of the scope of work rule, it is the appraiser, not the client, who determines and performs the scope of work needed to produce credible results for each appraisal assignment.

and

Under the USPAP scope of work and competency rules, an appraiser may define the scope of work in a manner that ensures the appraiser has the required competency to perform the assignment, which is precisely what the appraiser did here.

As identified in my 00 doc cover letter, some of the occurrences are difficult to believe and explain so I included the attachments so the reader could see for themselves. I also provided a link so you can obtain the originals from TALCB. If you doubt what I say, then I suggest you read the attachments or get them directly from TALCB.

I agree the TALCB ruling is a direct violation of USPAP and appraisal regulations. Since the regulatory agency ruled in this manner, they must rule consistently on similar issues and that is what the appraisal user community must follow.
Wrong and wrong again.

Regarding your no impact on the industry comments, the Handbook author has already acknowledged the Handbook is unrealistic and has made a half *** attempt to correct it. The Handbook is still a mess, but it is a moot point because TALCB has ruled the Appraiser can dismiss the excessive SOW requirements.
The TALCB has made no such ruling and any rational person who reads the TALCB's ruling and comments will understand that

You underestimate the impact of the TALCB ruling in this complaint . . .

buene suerte . . .

Yes, I did read the attached documents and completely reject your interpretation of their decision and comments and will have no further response to you as I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who I believe is not rational (I believe that you are bat-sh*t crazy based on your complaint and what you have posted in this an other threads)

By the way, you are completely despicable human being for throwing another appraiser under the bus for essentially doing nothing more than completing a FHA appraisal simply because your are peeved with the FHA and hoped that the TALCB would rule that following the FHA appraisal inspection protocols is a USPAP violation. The TALCB correctly and predictably rejected your absurd and merit-less complaint.

 

[J Grant]

.Good thing the board had common sense and dismissed the complaint.

 

[djd09]

i'm just posting so i can follow along. but the handbook is a joke. FHA is a joke. and if TimD is calling you names then you must be on to something.

 

[Tejus]

Yes, I did read the attached documents and completely reject your interpretation of their decision and comments and will have no further response to you as I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who I believe is not rational (I believe that you are bat-sh*t crazy based on your complaint and what you have posted in this an other threads)

By the way, you are completely despicable human being for throwing another appraiser under the bus for essentially doing nothing more than completing a FHA appraisal simply because your are peeved with the FHA and hoped that the TALCB would rule that following the FHA appraisal inspection protocols is a USPAP violation. The TALCB correctly and predictably rejected your absurd and merit-less complaint.

It's gotta hurt when the TALCB Commissioner's letter confirms the OP's claims are correct and your claims are incorrect. It also raises the issue whether you even read the attached doc's.

Alan, I agree that FHA's wording sucks...but the end does not justify the means you're using.

This is exactly what needs to be done. The Appraisal User Community has been in chaos since the Sep 2015 Handbook updates. The Appraisal User Community discussion on this topic over the last 1+ year is meaningless noise and carries no weight. The only way to resolve this is to let the regulatory agency provide a ruling. We now have the ruling and appraisal user community members can rely upon the ruling precedent.

This is the same way the legal system works. If there an disagreement, then it goes to court and if necessary appealed to the supreme court. The same procedure happened with this complaint. It was submitted to TALCB, then raised to the overseeing organizations (Tx Gov Staff and AS staff) to affirm the TALCB ruling.

Like it or not, the TALCB ruling is what it is.

buene suerte . . .

 

[Tejus]

This is one of my comments to the TALCB Commissioner in the 07 attached doc (it is highlighted in the doc). My comment attempts to describe the Appraiser's SOW requirements:

In layman's terminology, USPAP requires the Appraiser to identify the assignment's minimum Scope of Work requirements to generate credible results, and the Client may identify additional assignment Scope of Work requirements which the Appraiser must perform. If the Appraiser accepts an assignment, they are responsible for identifying and performing the assignment's minimum Scope of Work requirements required to obtain credible results and to perform any additional Client identified Scope of Work requirements.

This is the issue identified in the complaint. The Client identified additional Scope of Work requirements which "must" be performed in addition to the minimum Scope of Work requirements to generate credible results. The Appraiser admitted they did not have the expertise to perform the Client's identified Scope of Work requirements and performed the assignment anyway.

TALCB shot down my explanation and claimed the Appraiser may define the SOW and dismiss client SOW requirements.

Since TALCB is the regulating agency, their ruling is the law (regardless of how questionable or outright wrong the ruling is).

buene suerte . . .

 

[Meandering]

TALCB shot down my explanation and claimed the Appraiser may define the SOW and dismiss client SOW requirements.

Since TALCB is the regulating agency, their ruling is the law (regardless of how questionable or outright wrong the ruling is).

buene suerte . . .

So I have questions.

If TALCB decides that appraisers don't have to run appliances or crawl under the entire crawl space for an FHA appraisal,

What will keep FHA insuring properties in Texas?
What will keep the GSEs from not finding appraisers in violation of Assignment Conditions, a USPAP requirement?

What will TALCB accomplish though this separation from the expectation of other appraisers around the country?

Will TALCB approach the foundation to re-write USPAP assignment conditions section?

Will TALCB approach FHA to rewrite the 4000.1?

Or are we all to sit back and say,

yeah so what?

.

 

[timd354]

So I have questions.

If TALCB decides that appraisers don't have to run appliances or crawl under the entire crawl space for an FHA appraisal,

What will keep FHA insuring properties in Texas?
What will keep the GSEs from not finding appraisers in violation of Assignment Conditions, a USPAP requirement?

What will TALCB accomplish though this separation from the expectation of other appraisers around the country?

Will TALCB approach the foundation to re-write USPAP assignment conditions section?

Will TALCB approach FHA to rewrite the 4000.1?

Or are we all to sit back and say,

yeah so what?

.

Good luck to any appraisers who are dumb enough to follow the OP's absurd interpretation that the Texas board has given appraisers the green light to simply ignore FHA appraisal inspection requirements.

 

[Tejus]

So I have questions.

You'll need to ask TALCB, FHA, AS and GSE for their responses. If you want their contact info, let me know and I'll be glad to provide it.

With that being said, the TALCB Investigator consulted with the HUD Handbook author during the complaint investigation. This was not disclosed in the initial TALCB complaint ruling report. This was raised as a USPAP violation by the complaint submittor (see 03 attached doc). TALCB acknowledged they had violated USPAP and had to revise their initial report to address this USPAP violation (there are other investigation issues which were not addressed).

Some of the HUD staff have already been notified of the TALCB ruling, including the HUD Handbook author.

After the TALCB ruling the HUD response does not matter. TALCB has ruled the Appraiser can dismiss the excessive Handbook SOW requirements.

The Appraisal Subcommittee has also been requested to review the TALCB actions and affirm the TALCB ruling.

All the appraisal regulatory agencies have been requested to review and affirm the TALCB ruling.

There are no surprises, all the relevant parties were contacted and given an opportunity to respond.