Gated Community

[J Grant]

Re reading the sections of preprinted 2000 review, the ext inspection of the subject is NOT listed in the certifications. It is listed in the SOW, and in the guidelines. Therefore, an appraiser is not signing a certification that they inspected ext of subject when they did not. It is not addressed in the cert section of the field review.

It is addressed under the SOW section, which states, the rev appaier visually inspected the ext AREAS of the subject property from at least the street. If the rev appraiser drove to the access point of street to sujbect and were denied further entry, they fulfilled the SOW, inspecting the areas from at least the street. The RESULT of trying to fulfill this SOW was that the rev apprasier was denied access to full view of subject from immediate street. They dislcose this clearly in the report, and use a photo of gate as exhibit. Furthermore the appraiser decides the scope of work necessary for credible results, not a preprinted form verbiage. If the rev appraiser feels they can still develop a credible report despite not being able to visually inspect ext of subject, then they disclose that, and state sources they are relying on ( original report description of subject, original report ext photos, MLS photos, google earth photos, overhead plat and aerial maps etc.)

The next preprinted section is the Guidance section.
#11) states, The review appraiser must identify any extraodinary assumptions they made in arrivnga the opinion of value, such as relying on original report for condition of subject.

If the client accepts the report with the extraordinary assumption made that the rev appraiser could not view subject exterior and is relying on original report for condition, than that is addressed in the Guidance section.

Even if a rev appraiser views a subject from street, it may be in better/worse condition, or altered since original appraisal, so rev appraiser is still relying on original report for condition on effective date of report.

The review appraisal pre printed verbiage does not address photos (someone postes a FNMA sow for photos, must have been from somewhere other than a rev appraisal ) . USPAP does not address the use of photos.

 

[Lobo Fan]

I have only had to talk with a policeman once in the course of business. A busybody neighbor called the cops when he saw me measuring a house. He came over all nosy and demanding to see me paperwork. After about 10 minutes of arguing, I finally told him to FO.

The cops showed up and I explained what I was doing and they were fine. I guess he is the kind of neighbor that videos dogs pooping in other people's yards.

Getting into gated communities is not a horrific chore. If you don't want to engage in a little subterfuge, then call the HOA and get permission.

 

[23Degrees]

Re reading the sections of preprinted 2000 review, the ext inspection of the subject is NOT listed in the certifications. It is listed in the SOW, and in the guidelines. Therefore, an appraiser is not signing a certification that they inspected ext of subject when they did not. It is not addressed in the cert section of the field review.

Look, you make some reasonable points in your post but this is somewhat of a straw grasp. How about this part of the certification:

25. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation(s) contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or
criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws.

Bottom line, when you stray from the pre-printed SOW or certs or any other portion of the form at the very least you have a built in conflict that can be used to put your credibility in question. Maybe your lawyer can make the argument to get you out of trouble, maybe not. If you are comfortable with that go for it. In some venues this might be dropped as being a silly insignificant drop in the bucket. But when hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line all the stops are going to get pulled out. Seems like a gift to anyone trying to discredit you when you supply them with such juicy ammunition.

 

[J Grant]

[quote=23Degrees;2124160]Look, you make some reasonable points in your post but this is somewhat of a straw grasp. How about this part of the certification:

25. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation(s) contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or
criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws.

This applies to misrepresentation such as saying the market was increasing, when it was declining, or the subject faced a lake when it didn't, etc. If an appraiser clearly states they were unable to insepct exterior on the report, and provides a photo of the security gate, that it is neither an intentional or negligant misperesentation. It is not misrepresentation when the appraiser states a fact, they could not get access to inspect subject exterior.

The sentence about inspecting areas of the subject from the street is on the SOW, not the certications.

Bottom line, when you stray from the pre-printed SOW or certs or any other portion of the form at the very least you have a built in conflict that can be used to put your credibility in question.

Per appraisal methodlogy...the appraiser determines the SOW, not a pre pirnted form. An appraiser can expand or change the SOW as the assignment develops, as long as they explain it, disclose it, and state that they can still develop credible results.

If an apprasial hack wants to discredit a review appraisal ( that's what they are paid to do), they are going to find something and throw it at the wall like a child throwing paint. Either an appraiser or review appraiser did a credible job and used verifiable data and dislcosed everything or they didn't.

Maybe your lawyer can make the argument to get you out of trouble, maybe not. If you are comfortable with that go for it. In some venues this might be dropped as being a silly insignificant drop in the bucket. But when hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line all the stops are going to get pulled out. Seems like a gift to anyone trying to discredit you when you supply them with such juicy ammunition.[/quote]

It is not juicy ammunition, it is nonsense. And the review appraiser in this case is not in trouble, they (the lender) are trying to make trouble. This is a lender trying to defend faulty reports by trying to discredit the review appraisal. If RE boards can't see through it...I think they can. I would bet any of you $100 this will never go anywhere once a board hears it.

PS, just this week there was an ad in my local craigslist looking for an appraiser to defend lender reports found to have "alleged errors", by trying to find ways to discredit review apppraisals. I may post it later is I can recover the ad. Says a lot for the lender that they were posting in CL to find an appraiser. Maybe it was Ameriquest or CountryWide or who knows...I feel sorry for the appraisers they hire to defend their reports....these companies are wolves and will no doubt turn on the apraiser they hired, if the appraiser can't successfully defend enough reports, or for any reason at all.

 

[JSmith43]

I just bought an extra computer on Craigs List. It is a very interesting clearinghouse for goods and services. Buyer be ware, seller be ware. I kind of like it.

Lenders and appraisers have the right to defend themselves with respect to a review. When reviewing a review an appraiser normally checks for errors in a review product.

Some of the time it might be a shorter assignment to just check for things that were done properly. One never knows.

 

[23Degrees]

I'm not going to speak for what a board will and will not make an issue out of. We've all heard and read some fairly scary stories and we have heard of instances where justice and good judgement prevailed. A bigger concern could be what the effect would be in a different setting such as when the appraiser is a defendant in a complaint sitting before judge or jury. And in all fairness you might be right, maybe one can counter anything in the SOW to whatever extent they deem necessary and appropriate in an addendum somewhere or on the first page of the report and not have a problem as to there being two statements that conflict with each other within the report. Maybe there are no lawyers anywhere at any time that can make the appraiser look like a fool in the eyes of a judge or jury for doing so and this is all nonsense.

To a certain extent I agree with the nonsense aspect as it pertains to this specific issue. But in the end one needs to decide for themselves to what degree they will deviate from the pre-printed SOW and risk repercussions regardless of how trivial the item of concern might seem.

And for the sake of clarity only, I would argue that certification 25 does not limit itself to certain aspects of the report but could be interpreted pretty broadly in some venues. As to whether or not there is intentional misrepresentation by having one part of the report say "I did X" and have another part of the report say "I didn't actually do X because ABC" - that is something that would be judged after the fact by parties that might not buy it or use it as an excuse to discount the credibility of the report in question in its entirety.

Again, it is a judgment call by the appraiser involved who hopefully at least recognizes that they are in conflict with the pre-printed SOW and makes an informed judgment as to how they proceed. We all might draw that line at different places along the spectrum but hopefully we can at least agree to that and also agree that the possible repercussions in the event of a problem are not exactly predictable at this point.

 

[J Grant]

Just for kicks, I googled advisory opinions USPAP not able to inspect subject . All the advisory opinions from the ASB backed up everything I said, that an assignment can still be completed if an appraiser feels they can develop credible results etc. They even gave an example of non inspection ( an interior multi family where the manager did not have key to all units.) They also backed up SOW issues. Research yourselves, several adivsory opinions on diff sections too much to link to.

23 degrees I appreciate what you are saying, but we can't let fear keep us from doing our jobs. I at one time did a lot of reviews for a company headed up by an SRA and an MAI who would look at the reviews, field reviews with ext gate photos with no access granted and explained were always accepted.

Mentor, they have a right to review a review for errors but not dredge up nonsense charges, but they'll do it anyway and tie up everyone's time doing it.

I like CL too but it has plenty of con artists and junk on it as well as genuine good deals. place for a lender to look for an appraiser to defend appraisals against reiews imo.

 

[23Degrees]

Just for kicks, I googleed advisory opinions USPAP not able to inspect subject . All the advisory opinions from the ASB backed up everything I said, that an assignment can still be completed if an appraiser feels they can develop credible results etc. They even gave an example of non inspection ( an interior multi family where the manager did not have key to all units.) They also backed up SOW issues. Research yourselves, several adivsory opinions on diff sections too much to link to.

No one is going to argue with you on this. This whole thread only exists due to the triggers that get pulled once a Fannie form is involved. USPAP and ASB back up everything you said until the Fannie form gets involved. USPAP and ASB do not back up signing a report that says you did X when you did not do X - and I'm sure it applies to whether or not X is in the actual certifications or not. And the problems appraisers face are not limited to arguing USPAP with their state boards. You can have the cleanest report per USPAP in the history of humanity and still lose your lawsuit. The argument is really about whether or not one can deviate from the pre-printed SOW without concern or if one actually has deviated from the pre-printed SOW in this instance as was clarified in one of your prior posts - I believe it was #47.

I think we can agree that one should be fully aware of what they are signing, whatever letters are behind their names, and use prudent judgement as to when or if they will deviate from the pre-printed SOW (or in concluding as to whether they have actually done so) and be aware that possible repercussions can exist for doing so - or might not.

Beyond that, let the boards, lawyers, and E and O providers sort it out.

 

[J Grant]

23 Degrees I agree with all you said on last post except I think USPAP includes both Fannie and non Fannie forms. I don't think the fact that it's a fannie form changes anything. But like you said, lawyers or another appraiser can find something even on the cleanest report , so hope in this case the right thing is done...without seeing either report of course hard to know what the right thing is!

 

[Couch Potato]

The Fannie form does change things in that it has specific characteristics, hence the term "form." When choosing to use a form an appraiser is choosing to use the language printed in that form. Readers familiar with a given form are assured that language is present simply because the report is on that form. USPAP provides great freedom, but choosing to use a particular form is choosing to give up much of that freedom.