Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Huds_Harm]

Many non-appraisers come here seeking advice from The Forum. With the many laws, rules, regulations, we have to follow including; USPAP, Fannie Mae guidelines, FHA MPR's, lender guidelines, lender assignment conditions, etc. We've helped numerous people navigate through the above aforementioned items and they've been very thankful and appreciative.

I suppose with appraisals, we can't boast a 100% helpful record. Especially with those seeking advice in opinions of a value they feel is too low..... or in your case, those seeking vengeance.

you mean accountability.

 

[Tom D]

oh my gosh. the poster is jerking your chains around and around this thread. and you people expect what from a psyco poster. or maybe a make believe situation done for the fun of catfishing yous. can't stop looking at this thread, classic pyscho repeating from the poster patient.

 

[Huds_Harm]

oh my gosh. the poster is jerking your chains around and around this thread. and you people expect what from a psyco poster. or maybe a make believe situation done for the fun of catfishing yous. can't stop looking at this thread, classic pyscho repeating from the poster patient.

jeez Surf Cats claim that the OP's usually result to insults seems to be the opposite when they aren't able to collectively bully them into believing the appraisers responsibilities were their own.

 

[Fernando]

OP is so set in her ways refusing to accept appraiser's perspective. She's trying to convince us or validate her reasoning.

 

[George Hatch]

you mean accountability.

You mean Kryptonite.

 

[Surf Cat]

Be serious - she's not seeking vengeance.

Are you sure?

Punishment inflicted retribution extracted for an injury or wrong.

Retribution: punishment iinflicted on someone as vengence for a wrong or criminal act.

Due reward, just reward, wages...

Vengeance isn't always in the context of killing or injury.

 

[Tom D]

her technique is passive agressive. me poor homeowner you appraiser bastards. she is almost to perfect in her replies. i don't believe she is a civillian asking a question. just the responses tell me she/he seem to know too much. could be someone from this blog jerking our chain for fun, or how many posts can i get in reply. i'm done the stupid talk here, poster is a fraud.

 

[Huds_Harm]

her technique is passive agressive. me poor homeowner you appraiser bastards. she is almost to perfect in her replies. i don't believe she is a civillian asking a question. just the responses tell me she/he seem to know too much. could be someone from this blog jerking our chain for fun, or how many posts can i get in reply. i'm done the stupid talk here, poster is a fraud.

This is equivalent to taking your ball and going home when you're losing and the fact you have to resort to insults proves it.

A contract provision may shield the drafter from liability for unfair or unauthorized business practices; it may affect and terminate rights held by the other party; it may also enable a company to stealthily appropriate (via a nonnegotiated agreement) benefits ancillary or unrelated to the consideration that is the subject of the transaction.

This post separates the appraisers who use the intended user clause as a shield and those who use it as a weapon to avoid accountability.

The appraisal industry should be held to the same standard with regard to products liability, a defendant is liable when the plaintiff proves that the product is defective, regardless of the defendant’s intent. It is irrelevant whether the manufacturer or supplier exercised great care; if there is a defect in the product that causes harm, he or she will be liable for it.

Instead this post was filled with appraisers trying to avoid accountability for patterns of bad behaviors. They would deny the pattern existed and often blame the other party or imply they were only upset because of their own deficiencies. aka Gaslighting

 

[Mike Ault]

This post separates the appraisers who use the intended user clause as a shield and those who use it as a weapon to avoid accountability.

I don't see any third option there. You know, the one for appraisers who use the "intended user clause" as it was intended to be used.

 

[Huds_Harm]

I don't see any third option there. You know, the one for appraisers who use the "intended user clause" as it was intended to be used.

That would be as a shield from "frivolous" lawsuits which was option number 1.