• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Hybrid

Status
Not open for further replies.
So if you think it is credible and it is not, then the signing appraiser is liable for the faulty report. That is what i been saying all along.

You've been saying that the whole time, alright. And you've been wrong the whole time.

If public records reports a comparable sale was built in 2007 but it turns out it was built in 2001 and - in good faith and in lieu of any information to the contrary - you cite the 2007, do you think you are you liable for that error in fact? If a sales contract was amended and nobody told you about the amendment, are you liable for not disclosing the info you had no way of knowing about?

Of course not. If you're acting in good faith and are exercising a reasonable amount of due diligence relative to the SOW decision - which has that 2-part test in the SOWR - then you're not going to get burned for errors that occur outside that SOW. You may be subject to criticism for making avoidable errors, but not for unavoidable errors.
 
I understand that you think scoping away misleading is ok. But it doesn't change the fact that the report is misleading. How the appraiser got to misleading is not exempt in USPAP.

And there is a huge difference between incorrect market data and incorrect subject data. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

If one really thinks about USPAP and how there is a requirement to analyze the purchase agreement but not view the subject of the appraisal, one would come to the conclusion that it is a poorly thought out document or bought by the local lobbyists.
 
The term "mislead" has a specific definition and meaning that is distinct from "erroneous"

"mislead

cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something.
"the government misled the public about the road's environmental impact"

synonyms: deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, throw off the scent, pull the wool over someone's eyes, misguide, misinform, give wrong information to;
informallead up the garden path, take for a ride, give someone a bum steer
"Caroline deliberately misled her""


Normal people understand that making a mistake is not the same thing as misleading someone. Especially when it was someone else who actually made the mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli
The term "mislead" has a specific definition and meaning that is distinct from "erroneous"

"mislead

cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something.
"the government misled the public about the road's environmental impact"

synonyms: deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, throw off the scent, pull the wool over someone's eyes, misguide, misinform, give wrong information to;
informallead up the garden path, take for a ride, give someone a bum steer
"Caroline deliberately misled her""


Normal people understand that making a mistake is not the same thing as misleading someone. Especially when it was someone else who actually made the mistake.


Is that similar to truth in lending disclosures, commingling of fees and lack of transparency in truth in lending disclosures? Idk GH. California may be fine with it. Some States won’t be.

This LA thing is in this controversy as well. Market power on price due to oligopsony to the borrower and antitrust legislation. Public trust...... I am referring to market power on price to the borrower from the oligopsony, not the appraiser. You say do what you say and say what you do. Think about the appraisal fee on truth in lending disclosures and very likely antitrust violations with market power on price.

Who sets that fee? Do they do what they say they do and SAY WHAT THEY DO? Do they have market power on the price for something they don’t even do (appraisal)?

That is misleading in many ways.
 
Last edited:
That's got nothing to what an appraiser's level of exposure is if they use a less-than-perfect property inspection as a primary source of the subject property information in an appraisal.

But to answer your question directly, if a lender is lumping the AMC and appraisal fees on one line of the settlement disclosure with the *intent* to mislead their borrower, yeah, that's an unethical act.
 
But to answer your question directly, if a lender is lumping the AMC and appraisal fees on one line of the settlement disclosure with the *intent* to mislead their borrower, yeah, that's an unethical act.

Yes i have seen that...I also have seen where they charged $500 to the borrower for a BPO.

Resist Bundling! Boy, can they hide stuff in that there, like not getting any of the services and saying they did - All wrapped up tight in a one fee marketing gimmick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli
Told you I appreciate your passion. Don't want you to go anywhere. I was so like you it's almost scary. My heart was broken when I closed my fee shop doors because of all the bull****. I discovered there are other venues for our skills...most of them much more appreciative as well. I met people who have different perspectives and was able to learn and grow from them. They learned from me as well.

I'm just trying to point out that trying to whip up a mob with torches and pitchforks is not the way for effective change. It is the way to cause plenty of damage tho...dangerous. I'm also trying to point out that the "elders" that frequent this site ARE speaking up...I choose to read their words...not assume their motives. The message is NOT comfortable...which lends credibility IMO because nobody trying to pander to the frustration that we all feel. It's my opinion that change is inevitable...better to have a say in the change than fight against it. The decision-makers will close the door on a torch/pitchfork mob...they might leave it open for reasoned debate tho.

Was a recent thread about a homeowner hell-bent on getting his entire neighborhood to fight the assessment. He refused to let the assessor inspect as part of the reconsideration. He stated that he already knew he was getting screwed and the gov't was just after his money and that he was absolutely right about everything. It will not end well for him. I see a parallel to some of the arguments here.

Thanks for the nice response. With all due respect, and let me tell you your points are not going unconsidered, nor do I dismiss them as merit-less, I think you are very wrong. While I am not an old geeezer, nor am I the most educated and bestest appraiser there ever was, I am not a spring chicken, nor am I an appraisal idiot either (IMO - LOL). I've been around long enough, and have made a habit of paying attention to, how the world works. Again, while I won't claim to be any sort of guru (I wouldn't be an appraiser or broke if I was), I do think I see things much clearer than most people, simply because I have in fact made a habit of paying attention, asking questions and finally forming conclusions, while most people simply move on from day to day, never questioning a darn thing about anything. I am in no way saying you don't do this too, just saying on this issue, I think you are missing the bigger picture.

In your post above, you reference the decision makers. I find it curious that you while you don't exactly dismiss the idea of organization, you don't really seem to endorse it either. However you then say, "it is better to have a say in the change than fight against it". Who said I was trying to fight change? If anything, everything I am saying is about enacting change. And, the change I am proposing, is for appraisers to actually have a say in the changes that affect us, rather than sitting back and letting the decision makers have all the power. While I can concede my methods of rousing up interest in the idea on this forum could lead some to envision a mob with pitchforks, the reality of what true organization would look like is far from that. I believe it would look like a chaotic brawl when the members got together to discuss the issues, probably much like this forum appears, however when it came time for the "decision makers" to make the call and convey the group sentiment, it would be quite professional indeed. Think about it. The problem we have now, is the decision makers are not representative of the collective conscience, rather are likely bought and paid for, and add a dose of big ego for good measure.

Going down the broken record road here, the professional organizations we do have already suffer from lack of interest, fragmentation from each other and influence from special interest. What I am proposing has in fact never been tried, at least by appraisers. However, other industries that have tried to do it, and have been successful in recruitment, consolidation and independence, have all done great things indeed, and usually then some. The trick is, to build the organization on the right foundation. However, without any interest in building the foundation at all...

Getting back to how I am not a spring chicken and my observations in life, I was often in my life an anti-union sort of guy. However, I have been a part of numerous industries that I realized were in dire need of organization, and I am no longer so one-sided when it comes to the idea (I believe in balance). I have also realized, the world is more corrupt than my idealistic self could ever imagine, and there are simply some realities we can not change. So again with the broken record, but until appraisers organize into a single voice, our fates will continue to be dictated to us by decision makers that do not have our best interest in mind, and in this particular case, the interest of the public either. The interests that will be served if we do nothing, are the interests of greed, with the world in its wake, if it needs be. Doesn't that just seem a bit ridiculous, considering the entire point of our profession is to fight against the greed of the world? We are failing in a big way, and it is up to us, and only us, can change that.

Grease makes the world go round my friend, right up until the masses get fed up with being greasy.
 
That's got nothing to what an appraiser's level of exposure is if they use a less-than-perfect property inspection as a primary source of the subject property information in an appraisal.

But to answer your question directly, if a lender is lumping the AMC and appraisal fees on one line of the settlement disclosure with the *intent* to mislead their borrower, yeah, that's an unethical act.

It’s deeper than that for me personally. As I stated in my post. I understand a little about antitrust issues and truth in lending disclosures. I understand ethics and other legal issues could very well spread beyond lenders and AMC’s.

The lack of transparency on truth in lending disclosures is a problem. States know that. Many appraisers know that. It is definitely related to public trust and antitrust law. C&R was done with good motives initially. Ask VA? Ask HUD?

The borrower and truth in lending disclosures will bring this house down. Antitrust lawyers are not stupid.
 
Yes i have seen that...I also have seen where they charged $500 to the borrower for a BPO.

Resist Bundling! Boy, can they hide stuff in that there, like not getting any of the services and saying they did - All wrapped up tight in a one fee marketing gimmick.


That’s what will bring the house down. Not doing what you say you do and not saying what you did on truth in lending disclosures and gouging borrowers as a result of market power on price from market structure.
 
None of that changes with these assignments. If you have reason to suspect their credibility then that would directly conflict with your "to the best of my knowledge and belief" and become a no-go assignment.

If you think the client's form is misleading or the disclosures are not sufficiently prominent and clear then that could easily push the situation into an "unacceptable assignment condition", too.

Say what you do, do what you say. Its just not that complicated.

Don't disagree with you in anyway The point of all my post have been consistent and my intent was to help everyone to some degree understand

Asked and Answered
1. Yes, we can do these Desktops/Bifu Reports - (ya'll stop gnashing you'r teeth and arguing over it)
2. USPAP must be followed - that's is a given no matter what anyone says
3. Each Report format may/probably will be different and some will possibly have a reporting issues - Add whats needed
4. Standard one has not been diminished and its is where the actual work is - price your reports appropriately
5. Inspector experience and qualifications will vary - Could/may/will be an issue
6. I pointed out the Fine Print problem - Fine print is where they bury something because they really don't want anyone to think about it or
for some strange its not important to them because USPAP doesn't apply to them and its our problem
7. This is not a cash cow - like some may think
8. There is risk in any assignment - Report format is one, but there are many others
9. I have concerns that an appraiser can lose GEO/Economic Competence in their individual market if they complete a lot of these in a period of time.


There were other points I made just can't remember what they were, or I affirmed someone's statement.

Finally; Yes,we can always turn down an assignment - That applies to any Assignment request. The reasons are many, Client type, format, turn time, Fee, etc

Here is the biggest Problem; This is a small group of Regular's - To bad there is not a way to let all Appraisers understand the Pro/Cons of this assignment type. State Appraisal Boards could really step up and inform all their Licensee of the Strengths, Weaknesses and Risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top