If you work in the same cookie cutter subdivisions

[chad hampton]

And for anyone interested, those examples were not even argued. What was argued is those examples only apply if an appraiser does those things if a non-appraiser does those things then it’s clearly not appraisal assistance because the person doing them is not an appraiser.

Do you see the mental gymnastics that the snake oil pushers do when they show up that board meetings? If it wasn’t so corrupt, it would be a beautiful thing to witness.

 

[George Hatch]

Even back when this was being debated at the appraisal boards, the Revaa lackeys they flew in, didn’t argue that that’s what it said. Their argument was that’s not what it meant.

Of course, it’s kinda hard to argue What’s written when you hand out copies of it for everyone to see.

Instead of giving you the year and the page and the line which I’ve done many times, and I don’t know how to screenshot pictures on this, I’m not going to do that anymore. But even AI think you’re wrong.


“In the Context of Property Appraisal (USPAP)
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), which govern the work of certified appraisers, provide specific examples of what constitutes "significant appraisal assistance." This assistance relates to the core appraisal process and requires appraiser competency.
Examples of activities considered significant appraisal assistance include:

• Research and selection of comparable properties and data.
• Inspection of the subject property and comparable properties.
• Estimating accrued depreciation.
• Forecasting income and expenses. “

I don't care who argued what. The text is the text, and you don't have a single excerpt from USPAP that says otherwise. You never have.

If at any point your state board thought they could just rewrite things on the fly - solely because they're the state board and what they say goes - and without having to defend their decisions in court then that might have been a mistake on their part. A decision which they apparently did end up reconsidering.

This here is America. IRL it is not uncommon for Govt entities get sued or for rulings to be appealed. The govt's decision to fight or quit will usually include consideration of their chances in court. It is not immoral to challenge the govt on the basis of how the various laws, rules and regulations are written; nor is it immoral for the govt to withdraw from a policy if they think they're going to lose in court.

 

[Fernando]

To the best of my memory, USPAP has never has anything to say about the property inspection... other than, if you certify you personally inspected the property that means you went there and inspected it. USPAP doesn't require trainees to be supervised by certified appraisers.

Maybe the very first thing that many appraiser need to do is to actually read and understand USPAP instead of just remembering what they can from a class they didn't want to be in.

Reading an inspection report (if I could get access) from a purchase appraisal helps in doing an appraisal too.

 

[Joe Flacco]

The better question might be why does the same lender and underwriter need separate appraisals for the 10,000 cookie cutter townhouses in the same subdivision.

 

[ucbruin]

This reminds me of the times that borrowers would say to me as I asked them questions....
"I gave all that information to the last appraiser"....

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

the fee isn't the issue fern

If you have a sensitivity analysis, save it in a file and bring it in for each report and update the sensitivity annually. Do a screen shot and safe as a jpg.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

View, location, quality and any across the board adjustments do require a detailed explanation of how you arrived at it.

And for me, in many cases that "view" is baked into the land cake. It has the same view whether it has a house on the property or not. Therefore, many times "view" should be reflected in the land value. So, if I use lakeside land comps with landside lots, the land component should reflect the view contribution. I don't see how one can value the property land high, then another view adjustment separate from the land. That's double dipping. Using non-lake front comps means a land adjustment, not a view adjustment. It's only when the non-lake front comp has a better view due to elevation that an adjustment for view might cancel the higher contribution for having lake frontage.

Even then lake frontage can be unable to access the lake or site a dock, so it's land value only reflects that view but not the ability to site a dock which is why many people want a lakeside lot.