Hybrid

[George Hatch]

There are two principal USPAP compliance issues with these HA’s:

1. the person acting as the ‘field inspector’ is actually performing Appraisal Practice as defined by USPAP. Some may dispute that statement. But without the field inspector’s inspection data, no actual Appraisal can be completed by the Appraiser – because the appraiser is not engaged as the ‘field inspector.’ It’s my guess that the majority of ‘field inspectors’ ARE NOT licensed appraisers. As such, an Appraiser who allows some unidentified person to perform Appraisal Practice in the preparation of a report is in violation of USPAP. (I know about an appraiser who had to forfeit his license back to the state for this very reason.)
2. Having someone besides the licensed appraiser contribute Significant Appraisal Assistance, without identifying that individual in the report, is also a USPAP violation charged back to the appraiser who signed the report. Significant Appraisal Assistance is discussed in FAQ #248 in USPAP 2016-17. INSPECTING the subject property IS considered to be an action that provides Significant Appraisal Assistance.

Don’t let the salespeople and others promoting these HA products try to persuade you otherwise… just because you can do these in your bathrobe, bunny slippers, in your basement for $50-$75 a pop.

http://appraisersblogs.com/subject-inspection-4-hybrid-appraisals

I would say that, in terms of concepts and principles, merely measuring and photographing are functions that non-appraisers can do and are not necessarily integral to the development of an opinion of value. And indeed, if an RE appraisal can be performed at the desktop - which it can - then that pretty much demonstrates the point that measuring and photographing is an optional step that need not be personally performed by the appraiser. Unless it's necessary as an assignment condition.

One control group for that assertion are the other appraisal disciplines. THEY aren't dependent on the appraiser personally developing the subject characteristics prior to analyses.

Even in RE appraising we have examples that belie the knee jerk chacterization of inspection is integral to appraising. One example is proposed construction - the appraiser isn't measuring, quantifying or photographing the improvements because they don't exist - except on plans and specs that were developed by someone else outside of the appraisal process. Another example are the retrospective value opinions where the improvements no longer exist. With some of those the RE appraisers are using subject info that they never touched.

Appraisal reviews where the review includes the reviewer's opinion of value - that reviewer is using information they never touched to develop their own opinions even if its agree/disagree with the value conclusion.

"Team" appraising where multiple appraisers are working on the same assignment are another example insofar as some of those appraisers are using subject info they never touched.

I know some of you wish there was no such thing as a desktop appraisal. But, that boat sailed a long time ago.

 

[djd09]

So GLA is not a integral part. Gotcha.

Then let's start doing appraisal with no GLA calculations. Then we can eliminate the unlicensed inspectors and it will be even cheaper for the consumer.

 

[Meandering]

You would flunk the exam.

I would say that, in terms of concepts and principles, merely measuring and photographing are functions that non-appraisers can do and are not necessarily integral to the development of an opinion of value. And indeed, if an RE appraisal can be performed at the desktop - which it can - then that pretty much demonstrates the point that measuring and photographing is an optional step that need not be personally performed by the appraiser. Unless it's necessary as an assignment condition.

One control group for that assertion are the other appraisal disciplines. THEY aren't dependent on the appraiser personally developing the subject characteristics prior to analyses.

Even in RE appraising we have examples that belie the knee jerk chacterization of inspection is integral to appraising. One example is proposed construction - the appraiser isn't measuring, quantifying or photographing the improvements because they don't exist - except on plans and specs that were developed by someone else outside of the appraisal process. Another example are the retrospective value opinions where the improvements no longer exist. With some of those the RE appraisers are using subject info that they never touched.

Appraisal reviews where the review includes the reviewer's opinion of value - that reviewer is using information they never touched to develop their own opinions even if its agree/disagree with the value conclusion.

"Team" appraising where multiple appraisers are working on the same assignment are another example insofar as some of those appraisers are using subject info they never touched.

I know some of you wish there was no such thing as a desktop appraisal. But, that boat sailed a long time ago.

Shooting for overtime pay?

Team appraisals involves all appraisers,
Not unlicensed people performing valuation services in the commission of an appraisal.
The purpose of the service is for an appraisal,
it is appraisal practice.

.

.

 

[George Hatch]

I never said that. But since you bring it up what are you doing in a 2055?

 

[George Hatch]

Shooting for overtime pay?

Team appraisals involves all appraisers,
Not unlicensed people performing valuation services in the commission of an appraisal.
The purpose of the service is for an appraisal,
it is appraisal practice.

.

.

First off, that's not necessarily true. There's nothing to say a "team" can't include non-appraisers or other experts.

Secondly, USPAP applies to each individual appraiser, not to the team. So for example, just because one appraiser in the team is in compliance doesn't automatically extend to every other appraiser. Just because one appraiser inspected means nothing with respect to the responsibilities of the other appraisers. Beyond them acting in good faith WRT information they believe to be reliable.

I noticed you had to skip the other examples I cited, presumably because you have no response for any of them.

Here is the central question at hand - either desktop appraisals are a legal service to provide or they aren't. If it's legal to do one then appraisers can work their way through how to deliver them - when appropriate - in compliance with our professional standards. OTOH if they're never legal then there's no way for appraisers to do them.

You need an absolute here, and you simply don't have it.

 

[djd09]

After the unlicensed inspector finishes the appraisal inspection they will probably try to sell you a piece of land in Florida. Don't worry you do not need to visit the swamp.

 

[Meandering]

I never said that. But since you bring it up what are you doing in a 2055?

I don't do 2055s
Resorts in teams, yes.
2055s, nope.

 

[George Hatch]

I was responding to djd's comment ahead of yours.

So you've appraised resorts in teams? Have any of those appraisals involved the work provided by accountants that quantify and qualify the subject's economic characteristics? Information that your team is using to value the property? Have you ever used plans in lieu of physically measuring? Have you ever used inventory lists of the FF&E "provided" by one of the parties in the transaction?

I ask because even if you guys do 100% of these activities yourselves, it would be common among other appraisers who appraise large scale projects to use 3rd party data towards developing the descriptions of the subject's legal, physical and economic attributes.

 

[Meandering]

PITTSBURGH, PA—A resident of Presto, Pa., has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges of bank fraud conspiracy, bank fraud, and wire and bank fraud conspiracy, United States Attorney David J. Hickton announced today.

The three-count indictment, returned on Oct. 25, named James Lignelli, 57.

According to the indictment presented to the Court, Lignelli was a appraiser who provided fraudulently elevated appraisals in support of fraudulent loan applications in connection with two different mortgage fraud schemes. The first scheme involved Michael Pope, who operated Pope Financial Services, and Tiffany Sprouts, who operated Sprouts Mortgage. The indictment alleges that Lignelli participated in a conspiracy by preparing a fraudulently elevated appraisal for the property located in McMurray, Pa., which was sold through the conspiracy for approximately $1.2 million. The second mortgage fraud scheme involved Michael Staaf, who operated Beaver Financial Services. The indictment alleges that Lignelli, as part of the conspiracy, prepared fraudulently elevated appraisals for office buildings located at 8150 Perry Highway, Pittsburgh, Pa., and 993 Brodhead Road, Moon Township, Pa.

The law provides for a maximum total sentence of 150 years in prison, a fine of $5,000,000, or both. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.

U.S. Attorney’s Office October 26, 2011

• Western District of Pennsylvania

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/p...1/appraiser-charged-in-mortgage-fraud-schemes

Right in the heart of AMC land.

.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

would be common among other appraisers who appraise large scale projects to use 3rd party data

The CPA is certified. I only use licensed foresters. So such data are typically signed off. The inspector? No license. No real training. A dog in the fight (a Realtor with possible conflicts?)