Get right or get out!

[FrankA]

Kevin, I couldn't have said it better myself. I just read now, it's a waste of time to respond.

Thanks,

Frank

 

[Wally Jones]

I initially came to this forum for help on all sorts of semi-appraisal related subjects. I've always received a lot of opinions which enabled me to view a situation from a different perspective. The forum seems to have evolved into a global coffee house, where one can wander from one group to another and listen to or join in conversations on a myriad of topics. My humble opinion is that it is this feature which makes this forum one of the most effective appraisal tools for which we could ever hope.

Yes, there are those of us who complain, whine, gripe and otherwise contribute absolutely nothing to improving the professionalism of the appraisal community. Some of us are so new at this, we don't really know how to effectively contribute. Others have been at it so long and have become so jaded that perhaps they feel there's no use in trying to change anything because it's a waste of their time.

My hope is the latter group will strongly reconsider visiting this forum in order to help mentor the former group which, like me, has never had the benefit of someone who has more than a half dozen years experience. Yes, your comments may draw criticism and any large group will always have its share of loud detractors. The benefit to the silent majority wishing to be the best appraisers possible should outweigh any such fear.

Wally Jones
Florida

 

[Don Clark]

8)

Sam,

"Play it again Sam". I agree with your post, your article, and almost everything you said. Where I disagree is with your not putting time and energy into commenting on this forum. I comment on many forums, and lurk on others. There is the NAIFA Forum, the AI Forum, Appraisalhq Forum, and several others. Some are rather laid back, some so active it is hard to keep up. Too old? Hell, I will be 66 next month and just getting my second wind. Also, I agree that not all reviews and investigations need to conform to a STD 3 Review. In Virginia we have investigators who are not appraisers. With them it is, as Joe Friday use to say "Just the facts Maam". I will contact you by e-mail. I sense a kindred spirit.

BTW, every prisoner in every prison swears they is innocent, same goes for many posters on thsi forum.

:twisted: Don

 

[David C. Johnson]

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

I'm real disappointed in you. You say you totally agree with Sam's post, all except for the fact that he says he will not take any time to discuss anything with us peons? I might have decided to completely ignore your post, but that last line of yours about the people on this forum was just a little bit too much. So let's go over a few things, OK?

You wrote:

"BTW, every prisoner in every prison swears they is innocent,
same goes for many posters on this forum."

My suggestion is that if you want to smear the people of this forum like that, you probably should confine it to a personal email as you suggested.

You wrote:

"Also, I agree that not all reviews and investigations
need to conform to a STD 3 Review."

You're not getting a little confused are you? Let's not be slandering older people too on this forum, OK, please? I think we have heard enough of that. After all, you hang around for another quarter of a century or so, and you will be one of them. Some of my considerably older good friends would consider you a young buck -- a mere child -- same here sometimes.

Yes, it appears Sam made a point of saying something like "STD-3 for ALL cases," but we all know it's not true. You sure know it is not true, don't you, Don. No one suggests all enforcement situations require STD-3 reviews. Well, let's just say no one says that except for those attempting to confuse and misrepresent the positions of others' on this issue. Isn't that right, Don?

In fact, unless an accused appraiser requests/demands a STD-3 Review in his or her case, I, for one, might agree that it may not be necessary. But that's just my opinion; the law in the land, and sometimes USPAP, may say otherwise. However, we never hear such ideas as this discussed by appraisal boards that repudiate USPAP, do we, Don? Why is that? And it's very obvious that many other types of actionable offenses addressed by our boards do not require such reviews. There are some reasons bad board do not want to do legitimate investigations and prosecutions, isn't that right, Don?</span>

This Post Might Help Remind You

Maybe we'll talk about this more another time, if you like. However, in addition to what is mentioned in that hyperlinked post, there are other reasons as well that this foolishness needs to end. We're not going to be having seriously guilty appraisers getting off when they appeal to the real courts because of gross due process violations at their hearings. This will be happening more and more. If that is what Mr. Blackburn is after, or finds acceptable, he can forget it. Just as an example, we had an appraiser in this state over value a property by over 400%, and he got off Scott-free except for a couple of classes -- just by threatening to appeal. (You bet I can prove it.) Enough of that. And of course, the even greater injustice to the appraisal community is that this foolishness provides a means for unjust and incompetent appraisal boards to wrongly accused and also wrongly convict unquilty appraisers.

Don, real appraisers across this country want appraisal fraud stopped, or at least controlled. That's the job of our state appraisal boards. Some of our state boards would rather spend our money and their time (i.e., "our time") harassing competitors, and maybe do a little reasonably legitimate-looking work on the side, when convenient. That is what has happened in North Carolina where you appraise. Is Kentucky one of these states? I do not know, but they are sure showing some symptoms, aren't they?

"BTW, every prisoner in every prison swears they is innocent,
same goes for many posters on this forum."

Let's look at this a little more. That is a pretty bizarre statement, Don -- especially from you. Maybe you might name for us even one? I cannot think of who you might be referring to on this forum (well, except for you maybe -- didn't you claimed you were innocent both times you were convicted by the Virginia State Appraisal Board?). Tom Hildebrandt has been mentioned in this thread, and me too in a way, I guess. Neither of us has ever had a problem with any state board except for a trumped up charge in his case and also in my case. Let me just ask you this: Do you think I was guilty? Apparently no one else who has examined the case thinks so at all, even several at the NCAB, as I understand. From examining the evidence -- as I'm sure you would before making such a pronouncement -- do you think so? The following hyperlink will help remind you, maybe.

[url=http://boardwatch.org/htmfiles/FAQ.htm]http://boardwatch.org/htmfiles/FAQ.htm

I will provide some hyperlinks for the opinions of others on the Web about this situation maybe when I get more time. I'll be leaving town for a few days in a minute. Don, I publicized my case. Not the board. I want to end this type unlawful practice in NC (and everywhere else, if possible -- I can sure help). You may have a very hard time understanding someone like me, or Tom, and several others. I may try to help you understand civic responsibility when I have more time later on.

"Joe Friday use to say 'Just the facts Maam.' "

Yes, he did. And I agree with him. Let's leave the lies out. And let's also leave out opinions stated as fact at hearings, particularly when the witnesses for these boards refuse to perform in a professional manner. Why do they never sign the inaccuracies and lies often presented at probable cause hearings? Don, that is an easy one -- for one, they could get in trouble with the real courts. Libel is a fairly serious offense, Don. Why no STD-3 reviews when they are very obviously required? I might recommend you read Tom's hyperlinked post a few more times.

"I sense a kindred spirit."

Nothing against either one of you, but did you really mean to write that? I am suspicious it might be a case of the "pot & the kettle," but I do not know that much about Sam, and I do not necessarily disagree with all that he has said/written.

"Play it again Sam."

Based on what he said in his post, it doesn't sound like he does encores, Don. But after some thought, maybe we've heard about enough.

These are very important issues to the appraisal community, Don. USPAP compliance and legal compliance by our boards are going to be very necessary for us to ever be thought of as a profession, or even thought of as civilized. But that is not all. We are going to need a means of assuring worthy participants on our boards also. After some more thought, I've come to the conclusion that to ignore your post would be irresponsible; to sugar coat it more than I have would be tantamount to deceit. We have some newbies on this forum. They should not be denied the truth.

David C. Johnson
NC State-Certified General R.E. Appraiser[/color]

 

[Don Clark]

David:

Just to set the record straight. I have not been convicted of anything. I shared some experiences I have had over the course of the years, in some long ago post or e-mail that in the very early days of licensure that I had been falsely reported to the Appraiser Board 3 times. Once that I did not have the experience to be an appraiser(this was a form letter that reported over 100 appraisers, obviously sent by someone trying to get rid of competition). This was an anonymous complaint. I quickly proved them wrong, the board did no investigation and was satisfied with the records and samples I submitted in reply. The second case I know who did the reporting altho it too was an anonymous complaint. I had refused to give a local appraiser credit for a 2 day CE course because he missed the first day. It was his style of writing, and his type of wording. It stated the same thing, that i was not qualified. That was put in the round file by the board. In another case I was accused, again anonymously of over valuing a property. I submitted my work file, and demonstrated how the 5 supposed better comparables were not comparable at all, and the board closed the case. You see David, I opened my own office 2 years before licensing became effective and it was very successful, so successful that some others would have liked to close me down. I too know what it is like to be falsely accused.

My comments about prisoners not being guilty, etc was probably just a little too cute by half. It reflects what I often see by some whiners on this and other forums. It does not apply, and was not meant to apply to you, the cases we have discussed notably several appraisers from NC, the MAI that was so unjustly treated whose case is documented on this forum.

With Sam, I sensed a thought process and writing style that I feel a kinship with. And, at 66 I could easily retire, choose not to, and expect to be around to bug the hell out of a lot of people for a long time.

Don

 

[bradellis]

Sam,

Very brave of you to even get into this. Not many regulators would have the guts.

These guys kept pressing me to come out in favor of STD-3 reviews in all cases. I demurred. I wanted to get the reasoning of regulators.

It is pretty clear to me that not all investigations need a STD-3 review. BUT, whenever an appraiser is accused of impropriety that is not prima facie, such a review should be done.

As an example, there was supposedly a case in IL where an appraiser did 100 or so appraisals using the same 3 comps and none of the comps even existed! Would we need a STD-3 review to tell us that he is a slimeball? No.

I believe that this will become yet another hornet's nest. What might happen in KY under your years of lending experience as a user of appraisals, or in IL where Mike Brown is an actual appraiser, may not happen in other states where the Director or board members do not have the requisite understanding. And, what do we do about silly regulations that have nothing to do with real appraising?

Case in point- when applying for my CA license (now received), I was denied credit for two NAIFA courses- not because they were not approved- but because I took them BEFORE they were approved. Lucky for me that I had taught both subsequently, which qualified for credit. Of course, I had to submit a letter from Margaret Sullivan certifying dates and provide the course outlines for them to approve the very courses they had already approved.

It seems to me that the various states have the responsibility to come together to standardize all of this. If that does not happen, then there must be either a federal oversight board for appeals (Don Clark has suggested this) or even doing away with licensing altogether, or do it at the federal level.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

It is a minor thing and CA did nothing wrong- just followed their regulations, but it is pretty dumb.

 

[Pat Butler]

Throw out compliance with Standard 3 and, as a reviewer, you are no longer required to develop a credible opinion as to the subject appraisal, nor are you requried to consider the original appraisal's intended use, user(s), nor scope of the original appraisal, nor have to certify to any of the points in 3-2(f).

With your example where none of the comps existed, the reviewer could have lied and said they did. What's to keep the reviewer from lying? COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD 3! SR3 gives the framework for fairly reviewing someon's work and lets the subject of that review know what sort of scrutiny to expect of their work. How else do you keep the reviewer honest? You'd basically have to draft all sorts of new laws in lieu of SR3. Why do that if SR3 already exists. It just doesn't make sense to have professional standards then say that they aren't necessary from an enforcement point of view.

If a client of mine wants me to review an appraisal that has a big obvious mistake then why not let me comment on it without having to comply with SR3? It just doesn't make sense to say that SR3 is required by users of the profession but not the enforcement community.

 

[bradellis]

Pat,

We have to go back to the original premise of this entire discussion.

Those who favored strict compliance with SR-3 made NO exceptions. They believe that ANY TIME you investigate an appraiser it must be done by another appraiser and under SR-3.

But many states have investigators who are not even licensed appraisers (not that I support this- only that it is a fact). In the case I cited, IL did not need an appraiser to figure this out. So, in this case, either a non appraiser OR a licensed appraiser could do that initial investigation.

A good investigator is a good investigator. Period. Any detective could and would have developed this information. Heck, any high school kid could have.

Using SR-3 in this case would have simply been overkill in terms of fees. The state employee investigator is already being paid a salary, but the appraiser/reviewer must get his fee, too. (But, BTW, the investigator in this case happened to be an appraiser because IL did not have salaried investigators at that time).

Why increase the expenses of regulation when it is not necessary? Yes, I am aware that they will not always get it right. If I am sanctioned for something when a SR-3 review would not have resulted in that, I would ask for such a review. I believe that most or all state boards would allow for that.

A board OUGHT to know when such a SR-3 review is needed. Problem is, many times they do not. That is why I am so adamant about an appeals process above the states, or doing away with licensing altogether, or going the full federal route.

Requiring SR-3 reviews in ALL cases will NOT be any guarantee that it will be done right. If the licensed appraiser who reviews your work gets it wrong, and the state board does not know enough about USPAP to recognize that, the sanction will still result. And THEN, you'd be faced with suing the state AND the reviewer- and you better have a good case, because, in most jurisdictions, you have to prove fraud to recover your legal fees. So, you can be right and still lose.

Brad

 

[Bob Ipock]

I am in favor of a Standard 3 Review if ANY of the involved parties request it. That would be the accused, the accuser or the State Board in question.

There are cases where the LAST THING the accused appraiser will want is a really, good close investigation. In fact, from personal obervations oly, I would say that MOST appraisers who have had complaints filed against them by informed and competent appraiser/accusers wuld not want one.

But...if they do, give it to them!


Bob

 

[Pat Butler]

Brad-- I can see where SR3 may not always be applicable. Then why always make it applicable for appraisers doing reviews? It's a matter of consistency. SR3 was apparently drafted to ensure quality reviews so it should either always be required- for appraisers and investigators. Or, if optional for investigators, then optional for appraisers. Right now, the enforcement agencies have realized how burdensome SR3 can be, so they make it optional for themselves.

Ironically, the recent changes to SR3 basically saying that a revised value is basically its own appraisal has really dried up the review market. Clients are ordering fewer reviews because appraisers are either turning review orders down, or demanding more money in order to comply with SR3. Those changes have certainly resulted in fewer reviews in the market which has resulted in more bad appraisals getting through the system.