Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Tom D]

what evidence did you provide that the appraiser knew that there were required unseeable repairs needed. not following a guideline isn't considered intentional fraud. it's usually a light slap on the wrist by FHA. you seem like a smart person who didn't understand that every older house needs some repairs. as is means i understand it's not brand new, i accept the problems. i minored in psych and you cannot accept what happened. one way to ruin your health.

 

[George Hatch]

And one should overlook and excuse incompetence and there should be no consequences.

Once discovered by the lender and FHA we cannot say these deficiencies were overlooked. Once the appraiser was disciplined by being required to take additional education (a common discipline) we cannot say the deficiencies were ignored or that the appraiser faced no consequences. You might not agree that the punishment fit the offense, but then again it's actually none of your business how the lender and client decided what reaction of their's was to these deficiencies. You don't get to decide what they thought was appropriate. And neither do the courts.

I'll tell you one thing you might not realize, none of the state appraisal boards would revoke or even suspend the license of an appraiser over errors like these unless perhaps if made deliberately. Some might issue a fine, some might not.

 

[Huds_Harm]

what evidence did you provide that the appraiser knew that there were required unseeable repairs needed. not following a guideline isn't considered intentional fraud. it's usually a light slap on the wrist by FHA. you seem like a smart person who didn't understand that every older house needs some repairs. as is means i understand it's not brand new, i accept the problems. i minored in psych and you cannot accept what happened. one way to ruin your health.

Lets start at what evidence the appraiser had to disclose the fact it was well and septic.

The listing told her it was well and septic
The sellers disclosure told her it was well and septic
The OSSFF told her it was well and septic
The receipt for the septic tank being pumped told her it was well and septic
Her own eyes and pictures at the property told her it was well and septic

In her own words, the phone call to her after discovering the error, admitted she was required to determine minimum distance requirements.

Next use your psych degree to ask yourself why she chose to conceal that and NUMEROUS other factual items that she not only marked did not exist, she cropped/framed them out of every appraisal picture.

Hint, another appraisers forum, one that doesn't deflect to the borrower, stated it was intentionally done to "close the loan."

I'm glad you mention every older house needs some repairs, because the fact she did not mark one item subject to repair on an older home in average condition per FHA was a red flag and required a field review PRIOR to closing.

 

[George Hatch]

Let me REPEAT this slowly. An FHA appraisal that is marked "as is" rather than "subject to" when repairs are required is fraud.

Nobody missed your erroneous conclusion the first 20 times you made it. Saying it slower or more often or with greater passion won't correct the error you are making WRT this situation.

An error or omission CAN be the result of fraud, but IRL most errors are just errors. That's your starting point, were there errors? (Yes, everyone can see there were errors). So the "errors" allegation is a lock. So you can stop trying to use the strawman that people don't think there were errors or deficiencies. This must be the 10th time you've been told that your allegation of "we're denying" is untrue.

So everyone agrees there are errors. But alleging those errors were fraudulent in nature is a different matter entirely.

One of the elements of the offense of fraud is intent. If the element of intent is not present in the situation then there might be a different offense afoot (like negligence) but it doesn't meet the definition of fraud. And you have said yourself that you have no evidence and apparently have been unable to obtain any evidence that proves intent. If you could have then you would have.

 

[Carnivore]

I can not cut and paste what it says

I in found in 4000.1 concerning individual water supply water wells bottom right page #187 top of page # 213 Existing construction Don't know if this 4000.1 is current

Individual Water supply system

10 ft from property line
50 ft from Septic Tank
100 ft from drain field
septic tank drain field reduced to 75 ft if allowed by local authority

I HAVE NOT YET LOCATED WHERE IT Say anything about septic tank Requirements

bla blah blah

 

[Huds_Harm]

Nobody missed your erroneous conclusion the first 20 times you made it. Saying it slower or more often or with greater passion won't correct the error you are making WRT this situation.

An error or omission CAN be the result of fraud, but IRL most errors are just errors. That's your starting point, were there errors? (Yes, everyone can see there were errors). So the "errors" allegation is a lock.

But alleging those errors were fraudulent in nature is a different matter entirely. In order to prove an offense each element of the offense must be present. That's basic.

One of the elements of the offense of fraud is intent. If the element of intent is not present in the situation then there might be a different offense afoot (like negligence) but it doesn't meet the definition of fraud. And you have said yourself that you have no evidence and apparently have been unable to obtain any evidence that proves intent. If you could have then you would have.

So the question everyone keeps "side stepping" is what number of items that were required to be notated "subject to" repair would make it go from negligence to intentional?

 

[Mike Ault]

So the question everyone keeps "side stepping" is what number of items that were required to be notated "subject to" repair would make it go from negligence to intentional?

Show us "one" of these pictures that she allegedly "intentionally cropped".

 

[George Hatch]

So the question everyone keeps "side stepping" is what number of items that were required to be notated "subject to" repair would make it go from negligence to intentional?

Conceptually that number can be unlimited. In a legal or even professional setting the other possibilities include negligence or incompetence or even gross negligence and gross incompetence.

There's a significant distinction to be made between an error and a lie, especially when it comes to demonstrating it was a lie to the satisfaction of a court. You know this, so I don't understand why you continue to try to gaslight yourself about it. The only party you're hurting is yourself.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Conceptually that number can be unlimited. There's negligence or incompetence, and then there's gross negligence and gross incompetence.

And what would marking items that you see with your eyes as non existent, and going further to keep them out of every image be called?

When the following was required

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

The appraisal is for lending decisions, not a get out of jail free card if something happens after closing or you didn't do your due diligence.