Is It USPAP Violation or Reviewer's Opinion

[djd09]

the tentacles of the revaa/crn have far reaching powers...

 

[Carnivore]

The NC Appraisal Board are not a bunch of executioners. Quite the opposite actually. Many complaints are dismissed without the Accused Appraiser even aware.
Here is our process below

The North Carolina Appraisal Board welcomes you to its Web site

 

[djd09]

USPAP is cluster ****...usurped by the unethical stakeholders...it is so bad they need 600 FAQ's and 300 ao's to even make sense of it

 

[George Hatch]

the tentacles of the revaa/crn have far reaching powers...

And? By the time a state board gets to regulating any aspect of the AMC business their participation on a state board become inevitable. Regulation without representation is an anathema to fair/equal under the law. Besides, to what effect does their membership on a board that regulates their business have on what is/isn't an appraisal in Ohio or anywhere else? The far bigger question is if anyone on the Ohio state board know what they're doing WRT handling complaints in a fair and equal manner. Whether or not they are acting in a fair and impartial manner WRT regulating appraisers. And AMCs.

If you're angry about the existence of AMC business model then that's a fair criticism which most appraisers share. But nobody at a state board or even the ASC has any hand in actually writing the laws and rules and regulations which they administrate. The legal environment which permits the lenders and AMCs to operate this way are created by their respective legislative processes, along with the occasional meddling by the federal agencies and commissions.

The HVCC was an agreement between the one state AG and the GSEs. The GSEs agreed to stop taking your appraisals if/when engaged and controlled by an MB. And then that agreement was effectively rendered moot by D-F. Nor was D-F wasn't created by any of the parties you are constantly complaining about - it was legislated into law by Congress. Congress acted to permanently render your MB relationships worthless in the mortgage lending appraisal business. Out of apathy. Your interests weren't sufficiently relevant to anyone to prompt them to act out of either hostility or love for you. They literally didn't care what happened to you. Your well-being or preferences didn't even occur to them.

Your life doesn't matter to them. Mine neither. Get over it. If you're waiting for someone to love and care about you then you're in the wrong line of work.

If you want to agitate against public corruption then you should be more focused on how the C&R interpretation occurred in the final rule than scapegoating these other parties which had nothing to do with that outcome.

 

[djd09]

And? To what effect on what is/isn't an appraisal in Ohio or anywhere else? The far bigger question is if anyone on the Ohio state board know what they're doing WRT handling complaints in a fair and equal manner. Whether or not they are acting in a fair and impartial manner.

If you're angry about the existence of AMC business model then that's a fair criticism which most appraisers share. But nobody at a state board or even the ASC has any hand in actually writing the laws and rules and regulations which they administrate. The legal environment which permits the lenders and AMCs to operate this way are created by their respective legislative processes, along with the occasional meddling by the federal agencies and commissions.

The HVCC was an agreement between the one state AG and the GSEs. The GSEs agreed to stop taking your appraisals if/when engaged by an MB. And then that agreement was effectively rendered moot by D-F. Nor was D-F wasn't created by any of the parties you are constantly complaining about - it was legislated into law by Congress. Congress acted to permanently render your MB relationships worthless in the mortgage lending appraisal business. Out of apathy. Your interests weren't sufficiently relevant to anyone to prompt them to act out of either hostility or love for you. They literally didn't care what happened to you. Your well-being or preferences didn't even occur to them.

Your life doesn't matter to them. Mine neither.

If you want to agitate against public corruption then you should be more focused on how the C&R interpretation occurred in the final rule than scapegoating these other parties which had nothing to do with that outcome.

triggered...revaa/crn push button

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

he reviewer is rightly, imo, pointing out that the appraiser should be considering any functional or external obsolescence in the subject.

Does USPAP require us to differentiate between functional, external, and physical obsolescence? No. It only addresses accrued depreciation from all sources. Does a person's report or workfile have to state that they did examine these? If so, then why did they not address the difference between short-term and long-term functional obsolescence? Why did they not discuss (at least internally in their workfile) whether such "externalities" were environmental, economic, or locational? I mean if USPAP implies a full-blown analysis of various kinds of obsolescences why not go the full route?

And in the cost approach - shouldn't we also only use build up methods? Then address the minutiae of short-term, long-term functional issues? Any potential environmental, economic, or locational obsolescences? Does USPAP require you estimate the land value in the cost approach by a minimum of 3 sales? It does not even require you to use 3 sales in the sales approach. Reviewers for the state need to be reviewing for USPAP and not the ever-changing and ever changed whims of GSEs et al.

 

[George Hatch]

Reviewers for the state need to be reviewing for USPAP and not the ever-changing and ever changed whims of GSEs et al.​

That could possibly work if not for the point that USPAP requires both. When I accepted the assignment I agreed to meet the (legitimate) appraisal/reporting requirements for that assignment. Inclusive of the user-driven extras.

The only GSE whims the reviewers need to pay attention to are the one in existence as of that date.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The NC Appraisal Board are not a bunch of executioners.

There was a big controversy 20 years ago about that board as I recall. So, can a NC appraiser appeal the board decision to a real court?

Almost all our overturned board decisions in OK and AR involve appealing outside the board/administrative system (aka kangaroo court) and going into a real courtroom. I can think of 5 or 6 such cases overturned in the past 25 years. Wold in Alaska comes to mind to. One attorney-appraiser not only got it reversed but the board ended up paying him $3,000 or so for his trouble. Another in OK was sanctioned over a review from the persons ex-husbands new appraiser wife. (Imagine, if you will, a man stupid enough to marry a second appraiser.) Talk about conflict of interest.

 

[J Grant]

The reviewer reviews the appraisal, and it is up to the client to decide what to do next. Some of them use it for QC - or to kor w

Remediation of any must-revise issues in order to improve the utility of the workproduct to the user is a valid role in a normal review. Highlighting errors for instructional purposes so that the appraiser won't continue to repeat the same errors over and over is a valid role. Highlighting errors for the purpose of disclosure is a valid role. But by the time someone is sending an appraisal to the House of Discipline we need to get serious about which types of errors and omissions are worth a nasty note vs which are worth a fine or suspension or revocation. We can't be suspending or revoking licenses for circular driveways or an error in the garage area calculation.

Not all errors are significant to the outcome and utility of the appraisal to its users, and in general I think reviewers should be mindful to make the distinction between serious (this is a sucking chest wound) vs trivial (we also noticed these other pimples). Go forth and sin no more. I would even go so far as to suggest that the reporting format used in these review-for-investigation include 2 fields when summarizing deficiencies; one for the errors and omissions which are significant to the outcome and a different field for summarizing the additional and far less significant errors which also came to light.

IMO

When I used to do reviews, if it was a minor error, and I had to point it out to be compliant with the form, I'd write;

The appraisal reports concrete for the subject. The photos show the driveway is asphalt. This discrepancy would not typically materially affect value. ( something like that )

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

That could possibly work if not for the point that USPAP requires both.

Then codify the exact standards those agencies require and incorporate them into USPAP as "Supplemental Standards". So, SS 1 is FHA. SS 2 is FNMA/FREDDY. SS 3 is ....whatever. AND TOTALLY FORBID ANY DEVIATION from that standard. No lender requirements period. If FNMA does not require it, then why can Bank of Last Resort require something additional to it?