"Immigration Use" appraisal

[Rich Heyn]

Mike G....I didn't ID the 'foreign language'. It's not Spanish.

Rich H....after looking at the I-864 Affidavit of Support instructions, I believe the Dept. of Homeland Security and other gov't agencies ARE the Intended Users. Form I-864 instructions say that an appraisal can be used to verify the net value of a home as an asset (Part 7). The OMV will be provided to them via the form, less any loan balances due against the dwelling.

So...I have decided to include the intended users as: "Appraiser's client"; personal attorney of "Appraiser's client"; agencies of the US Government.

Using the word 'agencies' does not restrict the report from being used by any applicable government department that needs to use the I-864 Form in order to process the application.

Suit yourself, Dave, but by including these other entities as intended users you have just become responsible to them, at least to some degree.

My take on this is that your client needs to document the value of their property to HSA. Why does anyone other than your client need to be identified as an intended user?

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Sort of like VA's "Any approved VA lender" or "And/Or Assigns". Makes me a little nervous.

 

[VolcanoLvr]

Rich...

Thank you for your viewpoint. It made me take a second look at the I-864 Form instructions.

On it: How is this Form used? "This form is a contract between a sponsor and the US GOVERNMENT."

What is the purpose of this Form? "...required for...immigrants to show that they have adequate means of support and that they are not likely to become a public charge."

While it's true that the form has 'Dept of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services' at the top, since it's a contract with the US GOVERNMENT, it implies that the GOVERNMENT is an intended user.

Since I (and probably most other appraisers) don't know specifically which government agencies will actually review all the submitted documentation, using 'agencies' is less restrictive than naming specific ones.

I suppose it could say "US Government" as a user, but that seems a bit nebulous to me.

Part of our professional responsibility is assisting the client in solving or meeting a need...for any assignment, not just this one. If our intended user list is too restrictive, it could jeopardize the client's use of the report, and (in this case) the client's desire to comply with our Government laws and regulations.

 

[Rich Heyn]

Dave,

Again, suit yourself, but I don't see why your client can't accomplish his or her objectives without you adding the U.S. Government as an intended user.

The document states:
"If the immigrant sponsored in this affidavit does receive one of the designated Federal, State or local means-tested public benefits, the agency providing the benefit may request that you repay the cost of those benefits. That agency can sue you if the cost of the benefits provided is not repaid."

Say one of these agencies goes after your client and the property is seized and sold at a fire-sale price. The agency decides to come after you for the shortfall between sale price and appraised value. Have you not made it easier for the agency to pierce the privity veil?

The document goes on to state that:
"If you wish to include the net value of your home, this, you must include documentation demonstrating that you own it, a recent appraisal by a licensed appraiser, and evidence of the amount of any and all loans secured by a mortgage, trust deed, or other lien on the home."

Recent appraisal by a licensed appraiser. Doesn't say anything about naming Uncle Sam as an intended user.

 

[KenRossman]

I would just name the specific agency requiring the appraisal as an intended user along with the homeowner.

Regardless whether you name the agency as a user or not, what's the intended use?