Intended User for Litigation Appraisal

[hastalavista]

What you have is not a Fannie appraisal, therefor, you do not have to name half of the civilized world as intended users or "may depend on" persons.

Some habits are hard to kick!

Maybe I'll start a step-program for appraisers to kick the Fannie habit!

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"armchair qb" question...................

Yes, I would have preferred to work only with the attorney. The situation is a little more complicated; the owner is the son of an appraiser who works for me and is in a bind (I just want to make sure I don't get "bound" also) I'm trying to help (don't worry, he's paying a fair fee for the work!).

given the relationships yu just posted, a. becomes even more important to only accept the order from the attorney. b. are you really "disinterested" in the outcome of the assignment? .......just an opinion...........i'd pass it off to a trusted colleague.

 

[Otis Key]

Denis, in addition to Rich's post I would still make an intended user the HO and/or his/her legal representative. It might save a few problems down the road if the opposing counsel attempted to bring up something about it. I think.

Who's making the bar run this time?:new_all_coholic:

 

[hastalavista]

given the relationships yu just posted, a. becomes even more important to only accept the order from the attorney. b. are you really "disinterested" in the outcome of the assignment? .......just an opinion...........i'd pass it off to a trusted colleague.

I thought about that, but the analysis (although complicated) is straightforward. I do not know the son prior to this assignment, and have no dog in the fight. The appraiser (father) is a retired engineer who is now appraising because of an interest (he doesn't need the money) and so as not to be bored in retirement. I was his mentor when he was a "trainee", and he understands that my opinion is going to be "impartial" and the numbers will fall where they will.

The referral issue is an interesting question. I wouldn't do an appraisal for a family member or a neighbor (because of the proximity of the houses). I certainly would do an appraisal if referred by one of those parties, assuming I was competent to do so, and there was a clear understanding that my analysis and results do not favor any particular conclusion. I look at this situation as the same. Ideally, I would be dealing with the attorney (which is what I originally suggested); however, one hasn't been picked yet, and as Wayne indicated in his post, part of the decision will be based on the analyzed difference in values (if one exists; I haven't started that part of the analysis yet).

 

[Mike Kennedy]

merely playing "devil's advocate".............if you feel comfortable, and anticipate scrutiny by the other side's attorney, knock yur socks off ! (assuming you wear any on Memorial Day )

 

[Brian Weaver]

All of my divorce appraisals name Mr. & Mrs; never just one or the other. Under discovery, during the exchange of documents, both will see it and that's enough for me to make them both the intended users. They're both divorcing each other, so I don't know any clever language to limit the intended user to one side or the other. In fact, to me, if I did that, it could be construed as advocacy.

During the Korean war, General MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges over the Yalu River to keep the Chinese from coming across. Harry Truman said he would allow it if MacArthur guaranteed that only the Korean side of the bridge was destroyed.

He didn't know how to do that.

I don't know how to limit the intended user in an adversarial court proceeding. That's a bridge I can't take out sugically, either.

The plain fact is, if one side loves your conclusion and the other hates it; they've both "used" it.

I'd rather spend time explaining the contents of a report rather than try to spin USPAP with an "it depends on what the word 'is'...is" argument.

 

[Jim Onderisin]

The intended user is whomever you intend the report to use the report. I agree with those who say that, though many will read the report, only some are intended users of the report.

 

[xm72mhd]

After reading appraiser cases ad nauseum, I am convinced the courts have got something else in mind concerning appraisals than who the intended user is. Somehow, almost everybody in court except the appraiser seems to think an appraisal is useful regardless of the intended user who was supposed to be. It seems to have something to do with us saying at one point that an appraisal is an objective, independent opinion of value, that does not represent any sort of advocacy whatsoever, and then, in another, say no-one else other than the intended user can rely on it. People outside of our profession seem to have difficulty wrapping their minds around those concepts. They sort of seem to think we can't have it both ways.

So, USPAP and us makes a big deal out of intended user. It's a tempest in tea pot, folks. I guess you need to fill in intended user someplace in the report and then you are USPAP compliant, which is definitely important to appraisers, but don't count on it helping you much if some non-appraiser uses your report and then has questions about it.

Our attempt to define the parameters of our work seems feeble at best. Why don't we try looking at the world the way the world does?

Our blanket of intended user has holes in it. Rich gave you the USPAP answer, unfortunately there are other and bigger authorities out there and they don't even look at USPAP. That's just the way it is.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Edd,

I get your point about how courts perceive the two issues of intended user and disinterested third party, but how do they add the elements of intended use and deffinition of market value?

I suspect the same but I'm curious.

From your research so far, has any appraiser's attorney done what you would consider a credible job of addressing for the court the combination of elements of the scope of work?

I know judges can give or withhold credence to anything they want. But I'm curious to know if the quality of the appraiser's lawyers are what one would hope for?

 

[Fred]

Maybe I'll start a step-program for appraisers to kick the Fannie habit!

Are you sure you have kicked the habit? Until you can say it doesn’t matter what the form says, I am in charge of the scope – you have at least one step to go.

Brian is on the right track. As the title of the thread shows, the intended use is litigation. So how does a rational appraiser explain that he or she does not “intend” that the litigants and the trier of fact use the appraisal.