Getting Sued

[The Bob]

David C Johnson wrote:

I suspect there may not have been a (clear cut) case as the report's (standard) assumptions and limiting conditions appears to have limited any potential liability from the appraisal to that from the actual client (the seller, and presumably for listing purposes, in this case).

I would hate to try to explain to a judge/jury why any reasonable person would not be expected to rely on the data in that appraisal. Regardless who the original client was. It would appear this appraisal was made inorder to market this property.

 

[airphoto]

Wait a minute ..isn't this the purchaser?

Whatever happened to caveat emptor .. "let the buyer beware?" You mean to tell me the complainor relied on seller's information? Whatever happened to her own responsibilities here? Who was the closing attorney? Whatever happened to the title searchers, etc.? The Home Inspector?

Just another case of a liberal failing to accept responsibility?

 

[xmrdfghap]

Just another case of a liberal failing to accept responsibility?

<span style='color:brown'>What it is, is another litigator using a shotgun approach to a lawsuit. Sue anyone and everyone ever involved in the situation and see if someone will settle. That way the lawyer gets paid, the client gets his bankruptcy fees paid, and he comes out with enough money to do something else stupid. Labeling it "liberal" does nothing but demonize.

Ter might get an attorney to file for a judicial determination and get himself excluded from future litigation on this matter. If so, it will "only" cost a few hundred dollars.....certainly not enough to make his E&O carrier blink.</span>

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

>>he did receive an official Letter of Warning from (our esteemed & learned) Board at the time (erroniously) chastising him that no appraiser should ever appraise an improvement that no longer exists (i.e., the "mobile home" had burned to the foundation and the retrospective valuation was for insurance purposes). <<

You have hit upon what worries me more than the [lack of] merits of the case. namely, the state poking their nose in unannounced. I am curious if the state can make judgment on reports that are beyond the 5 year expiration of the record keeping provision. One report was done in 1995 and one in 1996. The true copy of the summary reports are extant, but the workfiles are incomplete having purged some documents. I did reports in 2001 on the same properties after the foreclosure, so I do have before and and after pictures to show what kind of trash heap they turned the properties into. I did a report a few months ago on the same two properties with new tunnel ventilation systems to the party the bank sold both farms to. He is making a profit by all accounts.

 

[David C. Johnson]

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

"I am curious if the state can make judgment
on reports that are beyond the 5 year expiration
of the record keeping provision."

Excellent point.

Are RICO statutes available to the States. I was thinking maybe this was only federal?

dcj</span>

 

[Larry Lyke]

David --

In your very lengthy dissertation about the dissapointed attorney:

The disappearable 500 sqft in the original appraisal doesn't override the fact that it was a mistake and the appraiser people ought to have reacted instantly to iron out the issue early with the Buyer.

After all, the Buyer did see the house and only got embroiled in this issue when she saw the appraisal and the probable potential for a suit -- being an attorney and all.

It's not obvious that the house would not appraise for the same amount even changing the square footage "number."

The best and cogent argument is that she did visit and see the house and that is what she bought. The fact that some of the arithmetic doesn't work, is meaningless. Her mental faculties told her what she was buying. And the issues here aren't mutually exclusive: 'You can buy the house at the price you agreed to and be happy without ever seeing the appraisal.'

As an attorney I'm sure she had that figured out. But also figured out that the appraisers wouldn't be deft enough or sufficiently contrite and quick enough to get in under the issue and elevate it to a nonissue remedy.

Apparently, she's right.

 

[jtrotta]

Larry

originally I posted that, I think the best Defense is firing off an Offenseive move (countersuit) for exactly some of the reason you point out here. Suits, are now like a pair of socks, everybody's putting them on and the purpose in most cases is to get the attorney paid in some way shape or form. Now I do not want to prevent anyone from making a living, but I don't want everyone making a living at my expense, so if it's "hot pursuit" they're lookin for, thats exactly what I would intend to serve em.


8)

 

[David C. Johnson]

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

"After all, the Buyer did see the house and only
got embroiled in this issue when she saw the
appraisal and the probable potential for a suit
-- being an attorney and all."


My guess is a copy of that appraisal (probably handed out via marketing efforts for the property) served to save her $300 in cash in appraisal fees towards her original financing. As an attorney, she knew to read the "small print," and knew she had no legal grounds for a suit, as neither she nor her bank was a client nor an intended user. No one need quote me here, but the term extortion comes to mind. "OK, sure, you cannot lose cash in court, but what about face?" Plus, sometime the bluff works, I guess. (However, a formal complaint to the Board is no bluff.)

"The best and cogent argument is that she did visit
and see the house and that is what she bought. The
fact that some of the arithmetic doesn't work, is
meaningless. Her mental faculties told her what
she was buying. And the issues here aren't mutually
exclusive: 'You can buy the house at the price you
agreed to and be happy without ever seeing the appraisal.' "

Actually, though, according to her complaint, the discovery of the error by the new bank "cost her" $700 (?) per month in negative cash flow. That would be a sizable complication for many people. A practical problem.

I understand your reasoning that "she bought what she bought," however, upon selling (or evaluating her assets, etc.), she would "price it" by the same means -- comparing it to the sale prices and characteristics of other "competitive" properties. The relative size of the improvements would be a factor.

Also, if you bought a rare coin at $400 only because you realized how much a bargain you lucked into since reputable collectors value it at $600, you might be justifiably disappointed (and even financially harmed) to later find out it was only worth $300. In fact, you might have decided to buy the other coin, that you actually liked a bit better, that was priced commensurate to its worth.

From a legal standpoint, "Do what you have to do" may have been a reasonable thing to say.

The hypocrisy and double standards for different appraisers is part of my concern -- seriously Unfair Business Practice. This respondent really wants to get back on the Board real soon, and appears to have a good chance of doing it. I tracked down and read an article of his in the "Appraisal Journal" a while back. Smart enough guy (as that can be real good "PR"). Mr. Keith is somewhat notoriously known as a "hellava competitor" -- unfortunately, like several current board members, board service appears to be partly, or wholly, an extension of that. Maybe not. Maybe he was the sole voice of reason -- but I doubt it. My question is: "why the hell need there be any doubt?" We have potential board members for which there is no doubt. OK, you're right -- getting long again.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for reading my dissertation, Larry. And thanks for your comments. Generally, I agree with you.

dcj</span>

 

[Larry Lyke]

So much of any lawsuit is the behind the scenes preparatory stuff that takes months to get organized.

At the present time, I think Terrel's best defense is to say that the BBQ he accepted was beef and not chicken.

Tell his story and stick to it. And to be sure not to wash his coveralls, lest he be charged with destroying evidence.

Should be get so far as to having to appear in court, he should wear those coveralls. When the jurors see this hard-working man, they'll just know that he could do no wrong.

Case dismissed... 'No, no... Mr. Terrel is dismissed, Counselor.'

 

[Larry Lyke]

David --

I think in defense of my argument, if I'm going to defend it, is the writ doesn't say anymore about the property than what she saw except perhaps to record those details.

My argument is the house is whatever it is, regardless of what the paper says it is.

Don't push me any further, because I don't want to have to describe what is is!

I can't get into why the Opinion of Value is what it is even having used the right comps and all. Somehow it worked out. Probably the grid needs a tune up right now!