Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Mejappz]

I agree with this, class goes for the least qualified d appraisers that they can coerce into doing things they shouldn't do. My educated guess is any of these things done on purpose was to make class valuations happy to increase his ratings.

If you don't play ball with these major AMCs, you simply won't get any work.

If HUD actually cared they would have an inspector separate from the appraisal. This would also get around appraisers feeling pressured by AMCs to not report mpr issues.

Of course.

 

[Huds_Harm]

I question your characterization of this incident as "trying to hide" things. And you seem to be somewhat deceptive, so have a nice day.

The only one that is deceptive was the appraiser.

 

[Mike Ault]

The only one that is deceptive was the appraiser.

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".[2]

 

[Huds_Harm]

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".[2]

a shame.

 

[Mike Ault]

a shame.

Yes, I was on your side.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".[2]

Qui Tam False claims act allows persons and entities with evidence of fraud against federal programs or government contracts to file a qui tam lawsuit against the wrongdoer on behalf of the United States Government.

 

[Fernando]

Why do FHA borrowers assume the lender and appraiser should have protected the buyers from home defects. It's for loan purposes and FHA borrowers should be grateful they have an agency to help them buy a home. It's the responsibility of the buyer to get a home inspector who knows issues of a home especially its defects. In our litigious society, the "wronged" party goes after the party with the biggest pocketbook.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Why do FHA borrowers assume the lender and appraiser should have protected the buyers from home defects. It's for loan purposes and FHA borrowers should be grateful they have an agency to help them buy a home. It's the responsibility of the buyer to get a home inspector who knows issues of a home especially its defects. In our litigious society, the "wronged" party goes after the party with the biggest pocketbook.

Because clearly we should not expect something that we paid $650 for to be done with integrity or competency.

We should also allow them to take advantage of the loopholes that allow fraud and sit quietly to suffer the consequences.

The deflection and lack of accountability is amazing.

 

[Dublin ohio]

One the face of it. It appears that there were numerous errors all down the line. Some of which appear to be obvious negligence and failure to follow the "rules". But yet the judge basically finds all of the defendants not liable. Not taking sides. But something is missing

 

[Fernando]

Because clearly we should not expect something that we paid $650 for to be done with integrity or competency.

We should also allow them to take advantage of the loopholes that allow fraud and sit quietly to suffer the consequences.

The deflection and lack of accountability is amazing.

Low fee to be expert in everything. That's what happens when FHA asked appraisers to do what's not normally done as an appraiser.