Is It USPAP Violation or Reviewer's Opinion

[Tom D]

If there is a photo with the circular, shouldn't that be sufficient that you saw it, and it wasn't considered as value. No, we have to say that something has value, sonething has no value, something has a negative value. Some how we are forgetful, and need to reafirm something about nothing.

Never had a doctor tell me everything that they weren't going to do, so that i could make sure it was considered and not missed.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

he appraiser didn't mention the circular drive way

Yes, we have no bananas today

Please comment on the mudhole in the half-moon driveway

 

[J Grant]

If there is a photo with the circular, shouldn't that be sufficient that you saw it, and it wasn't considered as value. No, we have to say that something has value, sonething has no value, something has a negative value. Some how we are forgetful, and need to reafirm something about nothing.

Never had a doctor tell me everything that they weren't going to do, so that i could make sure it was considered and not missed.

Just because this one reviewer bought up a circular driveway does not mean we need to address every single nonessential item on a property. It was insane in the context of the review, but as we know, none of us can control how someone else chooses to appraise.

I typically don't comment on a circular driveway unless, for some reason, particular to a property, it would be relevant to do so. I do, however, typically comment on a pond or a pond view, whether it was positive, adverse, or neutral to value.

 

[djd09]

I didn't say that there IS a loss. I provided the definition of depreciation in the context of appraisal and said.... CONSIDER. When you've don't that, you may conclude that there is no loss in value or you may conclude that there is. The point really is, the appraiser didn't mention the circular drive way in the report's description of the subject property.

are you going to measure the driveway to the inch....

 

[sputnam]

If there is a photo with the circular, shouldn't that be sufficient that you saw it, and it wasn't considered as value. No, we have to say that something has value, sonething has no value, something has a negative value. Some how we are forgetful, and need to reafirm something about nothing.

Never had a doctor tell me everything that they weren't going to do, so that i could make sure it was considered and not missed.

You might think so... but, a lot of reviewers want to see the words. Doesn't matter what your doctors have done. We are appraisers, not doctors.

 

[J Grant]

You might think so... but, a lot of reviewers want to see the words. Doesn't matter what your doctors have done. We are appraisers, not doctors.

Imo, ( having done hundreds of reviews) a reviewer who flags a circular driveway is being petty- there is no benchmark standard for reviewers-but to be fair, like any appraisal, one should judge the total quality and credibility of the review rather than cherry pick a line or two from it which the OP did-

 

[sputnam]

Imo, ( having done hundreds of reviews) a reviewer who flags a circular driveway is being petty- there is no benchmark standard for reviewers-but to be fair, like any appraisal, one should judge the total quality and credibility of the review rather than cherry pick a line or two from it which the OP did-

I agree... it's petty... however, in this situation the reviewer has the power. You might... and I stress might... be able to convince the reviewer to let it go.... or... talk to a supervisor who will agree with you... but, you will spend way too much time doing so. Much quicker and simpler just to revise and resubmit the report with comments about the circular driveway included. Of course, if you have nothing better to do, you are welcome to fight.

 

[J Grant]

I agree... it's petty... however, in this situation the reviewer has the power. You might... and I stress might... be able to convince the reviewer to let it go.... or... talk to a supervisor who will agree with you... but, you will spend way too much time doing so. Much quicker and simpler just to revise and resubmit the report with comments about the circular driveway included. Of course, if you have nothing better to do, you are welcome to fight.

In my experience, in most forensic/field reviews, there is no interaction between the reviewer and the appraiser and usually, the appraiser's name and contact info are blacked out on the appraisal

. A QC review by a client pre-acceptance is a different animal, and that typically will have communication and the appraiser can respond or revise etc.

 

[sputnam]

Often no direct communication... however, the reviewer writes the review which is then shared either in whole or excerpted when the admin person asks the appraiser to revise. I haven't gotten a review request where the appraiser's name is redacted in many, many years. The few times I have, I contacted my Client and got the name. USPAP requires that the review report state the name of the person who completed the work under review.

 

[J Grant]

Often no direct communication... however, the reviewer writes the review which is then shared either in whole or excerpted when the admin person asks the appraiser to revise. I haven't gotten a review request where the appraiser's name is redacted in many, many years. The few times I have, I contacted my Client and got the name. USPAP requires that the review report state the name of the person who completed the work under review.

We are talking about different kinds of reviews. There is the immediate review, where the results are passed on to the administrator, who has a chance to respond or review the report.

The other kind of review, usually because the appraisal was flagged or the loan went into default, is a forensic review (it could be months or years down the road ), where the name of the appraiser is typically blacked out. The appraiser might not be aware that a review was performed. I bet many of us had our work forensically reviewed and if the appraisal was fine, we were not informed about it.
I am not aware of a USPAP requirement that a review report state the name of the person whose work is under review.