Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Huds_Harm]

As Surf Cat said, "Appraisers don't like to be jerked around".
If there's a question and given all the facts, we will tell it the way it is.

Neither do buyers when they learn someone's incompetence created an over $100,000.00 bill they otherwise would not have and its clear ya'll don't get a lot of buyers on here.

 

[Huds_Harm]

I'm only posting because you're quoting my posts. I said I was out. Don't quote my posts and you'll not hear from me again.

It doesn't matter what I would say about your desktop review with 18 deficiencies....you still forged forward and signed on the dotted line.

G. Hatch's post #702 sums it all up perfectly BTW.

is that your version of "she started it first"?

Just because buyers are outnumbered here on your appraisers forum does not mean they will cave to your "due diligence" speeches to try to absolve appraisers of their duties.

 

[Fernando]

Surf Cat is one of few forumites whose opinion I respect (except when he calls me slumlord and that's a matter of opinion).
After a while, it's hard for me to follow the details.
For him to get upset on your views mean there is something wrong with your defense.

 

[Huds_Harm]

C'mon now, that is exactly why you sued, the only reason you sued. If the system hadn't failed then you still wouldn't be aware of, nor would you care, about FHAs underwriting criteria. You only started looking for the escape route once you became aware of the problem.

Inasmuch as you COULD have exercised more due diligence on your end prior to even making an offer then you didn't work to your options and alternatives. I don't disagree that your efforts were no more nor less than that of most other market participants, but you COULD have done more had you known more about what you were doing. That much is on you and is in addition to the appraiser's failures. Not in lieu of their responsibilities (which you're the only one who keeps making that strawman).

This wasn't an inevitable or unavoidable outcome on your part. You should consider admitting that, even if only to yourself.

You mean the only reason the appraiser got caught intentionally concealing items is due to the system failing and the buyer actually doing the research to see what SHOULD have happened?

No need to answer.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Surf Cat is one of few forumites whose opinion I respect (except when he calls me slumlord and that's a matter of opinion).
After a while, it's hard for me to follow the details.
For him to get upset on your views mean there is something wrong with your defense.

Surf Cat you have someone to fly to California and hold your hand too.

 

[George Hatch]

It’s not my fault you didn’t take 20 minutes to read all the facts.

Anecdotal evidence? Is that like fake news?

You replied to everything except me telling you the desk review found 18 deficiencies including those that affect value, but I guess those were Anecdotal.

And facts don’t have alternative perspectives.

You’re blind loyalty to the profession threw yourself and anyone else who attempted to deflect appraiser responsibilities to the borrower under the bus so don’t claim you have morals and ethics now.

As shown by your continued insults.

It's okay, research shows we also interpret facts differently if they challenge our personal beliefs, group identity or moral values. "In modern media terms, that might mean a person is quick to share a political article on social media if it supports their beliefs, but is more likely to fact-check the story if it doesn't,"

You don't believe there should be any recourse to the buyer for a defective appraisal that be it not for their incompetence places a financial hardship on someone.

And that's what you use your CYA clauses for. Other honest appraisers that can stand by their work use those clauses as a shield to prevent frivolous lawsuits, not as a weapon to avoid accountability.

These are standard disclosures which are used across the entire spectrum of appraisal practice. We use those disclosures to convey to readers what the assignment is for, who is using it and by extension whose expectations we are attempting to meet. We do not attempt to be all things to all potential users. If you want to call it CYA to prevent 3rd parties from misusing it for an off-label use then I guess that's one way to put it.

I will also say that if the appraiser didn't fight whatever it is FHA or the lender did to them then it is inaccurate to say they used these standard disclosures as a weapon to avoid accountability. They stood accountable for their errors to their client and users; they just didn't volunteer to be accountable to an unintended user (you). You might still be able to get the courts to hold them liable for your damages, but the burden of proof for that case rests upon you as the accuser. There is no burden of proof on the accused to prove their innocence or lack of liability to you.

As I have said, we have heard of appraisers getting sued by property owners for errors in their reports, so the answer to the question of appraiser liability to 3rd parties for gross errors isn't "never" just as it isn't "always". Whether that's how it works in your state may be subject to how the state laws are written. That's a legal question.

 

[Fernando]

The problem is that Surf Cat, George, and others gave an appraiser's perspective.
Yours is from a legal perspective by putting blame on any party who can be responsible. That's what attorneys do and hope they can win.

 

[George Hatch]

You mean the only reason the appraiser got caught intentionally concealing items is due to the system failing and the buyer actually doing the research to see what SHOULD have happened?

No need to answer.

There's that "intentional" word being used on the evidence-free basis again.

That's a statement, not a question.

 

[Mike Ault]

You mean the only reason the appraiser got caught intentionally concealing items

The more you say it, the less I believe you. You are the one who is "intentionally concealing photographs" which might confirm this by now, "baseless accusation". You have given no reason why you won't post one either. You better not try these antics in front of a jury. Again, not "legal advice", just "common sense".

 

[George Hatch]

is that your version of "she started it first"?

Just because buyers are outnumbered here on your appraisers forum does not mean they will cave to your "due diligence" speeches to try to absolve appraisers of their duties.

If this were a test in one of our training courses - or is was a state exam for licensure - you would be failing it.