Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Mike Ault]

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

You know, appraisers don't have any option there. We get to accept the assignment, or refuse it. Those are our two options. We don't get to negotiate "intended use/intended user". I've done thousands of FHA appraisal assignments operating under those constraints without anybody taking my name in vain (legitimately). Plenty of sour grapes over "value issues" and "FHA repair conditions" though.

 

[George Hatch]

You didn't come here to seek any additional input or to become more informed about what you're talking about. You came here to complain and to presume to instruct us on what we do in our day job, and apparently to change some opinions. We came here to try to help you understand more of the material and to offer suggestions on how to proceed.

We haven't wavered in our position, and you haven't either except to abandon a couple of the misinformed and inaccurate talking points that you were attempting to swap in for what actually is. So by my count and at best, you're 0-3 on all that. You haven't changed anyone's understanding of how our professional standards work nor have you made a dent in the explanation that your way forward is to follow the process to appeal the judge's ruling.

You can call us names all you want but it won't change the judge's ruling nor their legal reasoning for their ruling. As for whatever happens to this appraiser they're not going to get any sympathy here from any of us, because their outcome hinges on the legal realities of this case, too. We don't support someone just because they're an appraiser. Their momma might love them no matter what they do but on this forum we expect everyone - including each other - to always TCOB.

This forum ain't no safe space for appraisers. As a group, appraisers don't do mutually nurturing and supportive and stupid-positivity foolishment. This place is more like the Thunderdome than some rah-rah support group. When there are disagreements it usually ends up looking like "Two men enter, one man leaves. Bust a deal, face the wheel. " We have treated you more gently than we normally treat each other. If you want nurturing and supportive and stupid-positivity then maybe your own peer group works that way - ours' doesn't.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

You didn't come here to seek any additional input or to become more informed about what you're talking about. You came here to complain and to presume to instruct us on what we do in our day job, and apparently to change some opinions. We came here to try to help you understand more of the material and to offer suggestions on how to proceed.

We haven't wavered in our position, and you haven't either except to abandon a couple of the misinformed and inaccurate talking points that you were attempting to swap in for what actually is. So by my count and at best, you're 0-3 on all that. You haven't changed anyone's understanding of how our professional standards work nor have you made a dent in the explanation that your way forward is to follow the process to appeal the judge's ruling.

You can call us names all you want but it won't change the judge's ruling nor their legal reasoning for their ruling. As for whatever happens to this appraiser they're not going to get any sympathy here from any of us, because their outcome hinges on the legal realities of this case, too. We don't support someone just because they're an appraiser. Their momma might love them no matter what they do but we expect everyone - including each other - to always TCOB.

Based on the information on this thread from the one party, it seems the judge made a good decision. The complaintant applied for a loan and got their loan. If there is a case against the appraiser it would be with the state board, lender, or HUD.

If you think HUD should of protected you more your case should be against HUD if you think they misled you. The appraisal is for the lender to evaluate and decide whether to give a loan/mortgage.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Based on the information on this thread from the one party, it seems the judge made a good decision. The complaintant applied for a loan and got their loan. If there is a case against the appraiser it would be with the state board, lender, or HUD.

If you think HUD should of protected you more your case should be against HUD if you think they misled you. The appraisal is for the lender to evaluate and decide whether to give a loan/mortgage.

Yes the loan was able to fraudulently fund due to HUD's lack of oversight and enforcement and is proven by their recent defect taxonomy update admitting the loan review classification excusing the lender 3 years ago was wrong.

It absolutely starts at the top and had HUD forced the lender to indemnify the loan as required, they would have been forced to continue their cross claim against the appraiser for negligence, breach of contract and FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT.

But HUD not only relies on the lender to "self report" these errors they allow them to choose the severity category to escape accountability.

Fraud breeds when there is no oversight and especially when there are no consequences to it.

 

[Mike Ault]

Yes the loan was able to fraudulently fund due to HUD's lack of oversight and enforcement and is proven by their recent defect taxonomy update admitting the loan review classification excusing the lender 3 years ago was wrong.

It absolutely starts at the top and had HUD forced the lender to indemnify the loan as required, they would have been forced to continue their cross claim against the appraiser for negligence, breach of contract and FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT.

Fraud breeds when there is no oversight and especially when there are no consequences to it.

If/When you get your next day in court, I predict that "NEGLIGENCE" is all you're going to be able to prove. I would generally start off a statement like that to an aggrieved party with the word "unfortunately", however I believe you know full well that you are arguing a dishonest legal position.

 

[George Hatch]

Get a competent atty, argue the law. That law was legislated and is adjudicated by the state. It was not enacted by the appraisal profession.

 

[Dublin ohio]

If/When you get your next day in court, I predict that "NEGLIGENCE" is all you're going to be able to prove. I would generally start off a statement like that to an aggrieved party with the word "unfortunately", however I believe you know full well that you are arguing a dishonest legal position.

The OP likes to throw the word "fraud" around somewhat haphazardly. Of the four entities involved appraiser, AMC, lender and HUD/FHA. Only one of those four would have benefited from the loan closing.

 

[Huds_Harm]

If/When you get your next day in court, I predict that "NEGLIGENCE" is all you're going to be able to prove. I would generally start off a statement like that to an aggrieved party with the word "unfortunately", however I believe you know full well that you are arguing a dishonest legal position.

The lender filed a cross claim for Fraudulent concealment. Negligence was all I was trying to prove and I think you and everyone here knows full well it was negligent. Whether she owed me a duty of care is the issue and or escape route.

 

[Huds_Harm]

The OP likes to throw the word "fraud" around somewhat haphazardly. Of the four entities involved appraiser, AMC, lender and HUD/FHA. Only one of those four would have benefited from the loan closing.

The lender threw the word Fraudulent Concealment in their cross claim against the appraiser along with negligence and breach of contract.

And I am aware lenders/AMC's pressure appraisers by "forcefully" telling them they only accept "as is" appraisals.

 

[George Hatch]

The lender filed a cross claim for Fraudulent concealment. Negligence was all I was trying to prove and I think you and everyone here knows full well it was negligent. Whether she owed me a duty of care is the issue and or escape route.

From your description it doesn't look like these claims failed on the "negligence" issue.