Florida Case Descriptions

[Francois K. Gregoire]

Hi All,

If you have in interest, the Florida West Coast Chapter of the Appraisal Institute publishes a newsletter with descriptions of cases heard before the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. Ernie Carroll, SRA attends every meeting of the FREAB and writes descriptions of cases which shed more light on the specifics than any "official" publication.

Although the descriptions are accurate, in some cases there is additional information and mitigating circumstances not mentioned which may have an effect on the decision made by the FREAB.

This is a link to a pdf file. Case descriptions are on page 6.

There's plenty more useful information.

NEWSLETTER LINK

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

Hmmm,

Really thought this would generate more interest.

Was it something I said?

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Frank

Just my quick cut.

My experience is that most appraisers do not want to get into the specifics, they just want to know that the regulatory board "hung the guilty party." It is the old "he must be guilty if a peer turned him in" idea. Most appraisers do not want to dig to get to the real issues, they just want vindication that the other guy is the bad appraiser.

Look at the time I have had to explain the cases on this forum, just to get a few people to realize that the NCAB is trampling all over folks.

Do you have a feel for the AI members in Florida regarding the newsletter? Do they actually read a more detailed description or do they jsut chortle and say, one less bad egg to compete with for business?

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[David C. Johnson]

Frank,

I have tried to go to the site three times, but my computer just stalls out. Must have some sort of conflict somewhere... :?

But, I will try again now.

Hey, Tom, the current NCAB convicts on the Principle of Statistical Guilt: If an appraiser is turned in, s/he's Probably guilty. And Guilty or Not, s/he'll probably plead guilty. So why bother with the inconvenience of investigating a charge to perhaps document an offense. In a way, it makes sense.

dcj

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

Frank

Just my quick cut.

My experience is that most appraisers do not want to get into the specifics, they just want to know that the regulatory board "hung the guilty party." It is the old "he must be guilty if a peer turned him in" idea. Most appraisers do not want to dig to get to the real issues, they just want vindication that the other guy is the bad appraiser.

Look at the time I have had to explain the cases on this forum, just to get a few people to realize that the NCAB is trampling all over folks.

Do you have a feel for the AI members in Florida regarding the newsletter? Do they actually read a more detailed description or do they jsut chortle and say, one less bad egg to compete with for business?

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

Tom,

Actually this link was posted in response to questions posed on the "Old Board" after a link to the FREAB Newsletter was provided. Since the FREAB Newsletter provided only the guilty findings, the name of the licensee and the penalty, some folks were wondering about the specifics of the cases.

Since I'm not an AI member, not quite sure what they think about the synopsis in the AI Newsletter.

To my knowledge, the Probable Cause Panel does a pretty good job of weeding out the complaints in which there is clearly no violation of either Florida Law or the USPAP. Not sure what the percentage is (I've not served on the Probable Cause Panel), but I know there are a significant number of complaints in which no Probable Cause is found.

Have been thinking quite a bit about your "bad appraiser" comments. Just a little reluctant to say much. Guess the only observation I'll make is one appraiser we saw at the meeting described in the AI Newsletter thought enough about his work to turn in his license for revocation.

Some folks need guidance, some penalties. There is no joy in assessing a stiff penalty.

 

[David C. Johnson]

<span style='color:darkblue'>Frank,

I just left the computer alone and the site finally materialized. I was just impatient before.

The write-ups make sense to me.

Experts are mentioned as being used in the process. Does this imply that USPAP's Standard Rule 3 (Reviews) are performed at the Florida Board? If so, are they done prior to probable cause hearings? Are such hearings recorded in any manner? Can the appraiser attend his/her own probable cause hearing? If they can, are they advised that they can attend? Do they ever attend?

[MAJOR AFTER POSTING EDIT: FRANK, I SHOULD HAVE READ YOUR ABOVE POST PRIOR TO POSTING THIS POST -- THEY KINDA "CROSSED IN THE MAIL" -- I REALIZE SOME OF MY QUESTIONS MAY NOT BE PERTINENT IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE]

Is a written (Std. 3) review supplied to the appraiser outlining apparent deficiencies, inaccuracies, etc.? Does the entire set of board members hear probable cause issues? Do you have any idea how other states are handling these due process and / or USPAP issues?

Have you ever heard any instance of, or discussion of, any national professional appraisal organizations taking a stance on their members participating as board members on state appraisal boards while allowing or requiring their employees (e.g., investigators who are appraisers) to not comply with the USPAP's Std. 3? Any idea how the Appraisal Institute (or any of the others) might react to one of its members regularly testifying about the quality of appraisals and appraisal reports under question where no legitimate review was conducted, and / or the related concern of no legitimate discovery having been provided regarding the evidence or even the actual charge? How about the same where there is no basis for a jurisdictional exception in that state regarding such reviews or such due process? Do you know of any state that has a jurisdictional exception statute or legitimate / actual public policy allowing the foregoing Std. 3.

Some of these are considered to be "Hot Potato" (notice the proper spelling) questions. Do not feel obligated to address all (or even any) of them. However, anything you had to say would be of interest. I would love to see a poll done on this forum regarding the various states, specifically about Std. 3, but I am not convinced it would go over. Do you have any idea if the ASC tracks state board compliance with Std. 3 reviews?

Thanks, Frank. Hope I haven't put you on the spot too much

dcj</span>

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

David,

You ask a bunch of good questions. Some I can answer, some for which I have no answer and some (you correctly surmise) I may choose not to answer. Let's see if I can work through a few....

Frank,

Experts are mentioned as being used in the process. Does this imply that USPAP's Standard Rule 3 (Reviews) are performed at the Florida Board? If so, are they done prior to probable cause hearings? Are such hearings recorded in any manner? Can the appraiser attend his/her own probable cause hearing? If they can, are they advised that they can attend? Do they ever attend?

Still in the dark on the Probable Cause Panel. Although I've not served on one, it looks like I should bone up on it.

First, the investigations are not done by appraisers. The investigators are non-appraiser professional investigators. If warranted, an expert is engaged to prepare a review. Although there is no rule (presently - we will likely address this in 2002) requiring a Standard 3 Review, most tend to adhere to Standard 3. By the way, Florida's experts are volunteers and not compensated. Some of the best appraisers in the state routinely offer their services and prepare outstanding, objective and thorough reviews.

Although I've reviewed the section of Florida Statutes pertaining to Probable Cause Panels, I don't have an answer to recording or attendance by the respondent. I will find out, however.

Is a written (Std. 3) review supplied to the appraiser outlining apparent deficiencies, inaccuracies, etc.? Does the entire set of board members hear probable cause issues? Do you have any idea how other states are handling these due process and / or USPAP issues?

Prior to the Probable Cause Panel, the respondent is provided a copy of the complaint and the preliminary invistigative report. If an expert has prepared a review at that point, it would be provided. The Probable Cause Panel is composed of a subset of the FREAB, not the entire Board, and must include at least one Consumer Member. Active Members of the FREAB can not consider or participate in the determination of the Final Order if they were on the Probable Cause Panel. This is one reason I've not served on Probable Cause.

Have you ever heard any instance of, or discussion of, any national professional appraisal organizations taking a stance on their members participating as board members on state appraisal boards while allowing or requiring their employees (e.g., investigators who are appraisers) to not comply with the USPAP's Std. 3?

Nope. Keep in mind our investigators are NOT Appraisers.

Any idea how the Appraisal Institute (or any of the others) might react to one of its members regularly testifying about the quality of appraisals and appraisal reports under question where no legitimate review was conducted, and / or the related concern of no legitimate discovery having been provided regarding the evidence or even the actual charge?

During my tenure, we've not had appraisers, other than respondents, testifying as to quality of appraisals or appraisal reports. Respondents are provided a full copy of the investigative file.

How about the same where there is no basis for a jurisdictional exception in that state regarding such reviews or such due process? Do you know of any state that has a jurisdictional exception statute or legitimate / actual public policy allowing the foregoing Std. 3.

Florida does not claim, to my knowledge, Jurisdictional Exception for the situation you describe. I've got a strictly personal opinion on this which I will keep to myself. If anyone asks during a FREAB meeting, they can report my answer here. (PAM??)

Thanks for asking. You have prompted me to dig a little deeper.

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Frank

I already see several distinct differences between the NCAB and the Florida Board.

First, our staff investigators are appraisers. Seldom do they do standard three reviews, I only know of two instances and they were within the past month. There are numerous instances when they offer comments regarding the work product at probable cause hearings and at formal hearing without having done standard three reviews. The reason they offer for not doing standard three reviews is that they are not providing value conclusions.

The NCAB board hears all probable cause cases and the same board members also rule at the final action. The only sworn testimony is at the formal hearing. Appraisers are never given copies of the investigators workfile prior to probable cause, and are never allowed to speak at the probable cause hearing. In fact, the appraiser may never have been contacted by the investigators, nor had his workfile reviewed, even if the recommendation is for a hearing.

The investigators make no written reports as investigators; the work files of the investigators are just copies of documents and notes. When they make comments at a hearing similar to the following " here are three comparables which could have been used which would have led to a lower value, " they consider these to be factual statement. Their workfile seldom offers any basis to support their comments other than an MLS sheet. In the one known instance where they did present such a document, (the Johnson case) it was clearly mislleading and demonstrated clear bias on the part of the investigator. Since that case, the investigators refuse to answer answer any questions about how they came to their opinions, they just allow the NCAB members to make their own conclusions.

The fact of the matter is that the NCAB investigators are flat out lying when they say they are not forming opinions about the quality of aprpaisers work products. Many cases are dismissed at probable casue based on the investigators comments to the board that "I see nothing wrong with this report." Only the staff attorney knows what comments are made to her in private, I personally find it offensive to have her and the investigators tell me that they never discuss the merits of the work product. For heavens sake, that is exactly what the investigators are hired to do. In short, the process is a sham.

It is the selective application of the judgement and the unsupported accusations that upset me.

I was privately posted just today by an appraiser who chastized me for not saying that the reality was that 99% of the appraisers brought before the board were guilty and deserved everything the NCAB threw at them.

I have said many times on this forum, and publically, that I agree that many of the appraisers disciplined by the board deserve some disciplinary action. That is not the issue, what I want is a fair judicial process, one in which the regulatory agency does not lie and abuse its power in the disciplinary process. Competent review work would "prove" the majority of the cases before the board. The problem with the NCAB is we do not have investigators doing their work professionally. The other cases would (and should be dismissed). The two best documented cases of the misleading testimony and the NCAB acceptance of it is the cases of Johnson and Real, the case which provides the best example of investigator incompetence is the Stafford case.

There are others that show the investigators are advocartes for the prosecution, that they are not being impartial and unbiased in presenting their findings. However, I can not spend all my time reviewing all the cases to determine if the investigators misled the NCAB. I can say that in short order there will be another, very well documented case that will fully show the fallicy of the system.

Frank, thanks again for your informative posts.

With best regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[David C. Johnson]

Frank,

For now, I just want to acknowledge your post, and thank you for it. It was very helpful.

I've been pushed for time all day; out of it for now; I will post again soon in this thread.

Thanks again!

Regards,

David C. Johnson

 

[Wally Jones]

Frank,

Just wanted to assure you that I download the West Coast AI and FREAB newsletters whenever they're available. Thank you for making them available! I haven't had a chance to review the latest one yet. Have actually been working!

I, for one, think it's pertinent to see the details of disciplinary action that Ernie Carroll provides. It has provided a starting point for some lively discussion among those with whom I work and, in some cases, has changed the way we do things.

Again, thank you.

Wally