Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Surf Cat]

 

[Huds_Harm]

Ladies and gentlemen this post is the definition of trolling. In slang, a troll is a person who posts deliberately offensive or provocative messages online[1] (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game) or who performs similar behaviors in real life. The methods and motivations of trolls can range from benign to sadistic. These messages can be inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[2] extraneous, or off-topic, and may have the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses,[3] or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur. The behavior is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people.[4]

Surf cat needs supply.

 

[Huds_Harm]

"reimburse owners for the correction of structural or other major defects in some homes"
In previous posts we have established "no septic/well inspection was completed" per you.
I would find it hard to believe that without a "Qualified Expert" in their License Field (Septic/Structural/Etc) within State Regulatory compliance, an appraiser, would not fall under that License Law.

Jay the 518b program is not only to "reimburse"

Section 518(b) authorizes assistance to owners of existing one-, two-, three-, and four-family dwellings when such housing is determined, in accordance with criteria contained herein, to require correction of structural or other major defects which so seriously affect the use and livability as to create a serious danger to the life or safety of the inhabitants. Also the fact an inspection was not completed does not determine eligibility for the claim.

together with any explanatory information necessary to clearly establish the basis for approval of the claim
A Judge has already denied the Claim, which would appear to support non clarity in the claim

A HUD claim is completely separate from a lawsuit.

Again, as of the Effective Date, all parties appeared to have completed their required business and the Loan Closed. Who knows what provoked the system failure. Anyone could have left the water running for days, weeks for all we know.

The party in question has admitted to not completing their required business. Again the "failure" nor the reason for it, is not the reason the home was not eligible. It did not meet minimum distance requirements working or not.

So, are you now saying you reviewed Section 235 (HUD) of the National Housing Act, prior to Closing the Loan??
(d) The defect must have existed at time of the original appraisal and be one which a proper inspection by the HUD appraiser would have normally revealed.
IMO-you have been provided with information within the thread regarding this, also, where is the Sales Agreement which stipulates you agreed to inspections or waived them?

It does not say I must have reviewed anything prior to closing of the loan. The defect existed at the time of the appraisal and a proper appraisal would have revealed it.

1. APPROVAL OF FINANCING: Approval for the financing described above will be deemed to have been obtained when Buyer Approval and Property Approval are obtained.
2. PROPERTY APPROVAL: If Buyer’s lender determines that the Property does not satisfy lender’s underwriting requirements for the loan (including but not limited to appraisal, insurability, and lender required repairs) Buyer, not later than 3 days before the Closing Date, may terminate this contract by giving Seller: (i) notice of termination; and (ii) a copy of a written statement from the lender setting forth the reason(s) for lender’s determination. If Buyer terminates under this paragraph, the earnest money will be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer does not terminate under this paragraph, Property Approval is deemed to have been obtained.

 

[George Hatch]

Ladies and gentlemen this post is the definition of trolling. In slang, a troll is a person who posts deliberately offensive or provocative messages online[1] (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, an online video game) or who performs similar behaviors in real life. The methods and motivations of trolls can range from benign to sadistic. These messages can be inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[2] extraneous, or off-topic, and may have the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses,[3] or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur. The behavior is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or purposefully causing confusion or harm to other people.[4]

Surf cat needs supply.

You seem sad.

You came to us, we didn't come to you. This is our house and this is how we sometimes treat each other when the discussion veers from the content and towards the personal . Nobody is picking on you or treating you any differently than we treat each other. We have said our piece and you have said your piece; and in the end not a single opinion has changed on either side of the discussion. All of us agree the appraiser was negligent WRT whatever actual deficiencies exist in that report, so they get what they get for that.

If you had any questions when you started the thread (which doesn't appear to be the case) then the title you used for this thread demonstrates that you already knew the answer before you came here. You apparently don't have questions. What you have is an opinion that you are incapable of selling to anyone who counts.

Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender owe no duty of care (to me)

 

[Huds_Harm]

You seem sad.

We have said our piece and you have said your piece; and in the end not a single opinion has changed on either side of the discussion. All of us agree the appraiser was negligent WRT whatever actual deficiencies exist in that report, so they get what they get for that.

Sad that this industry "agrees the appraiser was negligent" but "not a single opinion has changed" that the appraiser owes a duty of care to the persons affected by it meaning you believe there should be no consequences to negligence.

Great business practice, totally in line with,

An appraiser must promote and preserve the public trust inherent in appraisal practice by observing the highest standards of professional ethics,

to which a few of you on this forum have none.

 

[George Hatch]

Your problem is with the judge. Not the appraisal profession. That's not an opinion, its a fact.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Your problem is with the judge. Not the appraisal profession. That's not an opinion, its a fact.

Thank you for reminding me not only are you expert appraisers, but you are experts at deflection.

You and your colleagues have attempted to deflect to my home inspection which does not determine FHA MPR.

You and your colleagues have attempted to deflect to me being a single mother.

You and your colleagues have attempted to deflect to how many kids I have.

You've even attempted to deflect to a YouTube video of Elvis Presley's song Only Fools rush in.

Now after admitting the appraiser committed negligence and also that you believe there should be no recourse for the persons affected by it,

You're deflecting to the problem is the judge rather than the fact appraisers get to use the intended user clause as a weapon to avoid accountability.

 

[Dublin ohio]

appraisers get to use the intended user clause as a weapon to avoid accountability.

You seem to think that appraisers create the "clause" from "whole cloth". It is not an option. It is a requirement and as far as I know it is either the law passed by legislation or regulated otherwise by all states

 

[Huds_Harm]

You seem to think that appraisers create the "clause" from "whole cloth". It is not an option. It is a requirement and as far as I know it is either the law passed by legislation or regulated otherwise by all states

Hey Dublin you never answered my previous question.

Fraudulent Concealment. Concealment or fraud by non-disclosure is another subcategory of fraud where a party has a duty to disclose, but the non-disclosure is misleading as a positive misrepresentation of facts. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171, 181 (Tex. 1997). The concealment is only actionable if the plaintiff proves the defendant was silent when the defendant had a duty to disclose the correct information to the plaintiff. Id.; Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. SPEP Aircraft Holdings LLC, 572 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Tex. 2019). Therefore in a concealment case, the plaintiff must also show that the defendant was under a duty to disclose, along with specific facts giving rise to the duty. Texas courts recognize a duty to disclose in five situations: (1) a fiduciary relationship; (2) a confidential relationship; (3) a voluntary disclosure of information, giving rise to a duty to disclose the whole truth; (4) a partial disclosure that conveys a false impression; and (5) upon discovery of new information that makes a prior representation false or misleading. Bombardier, 572 S.W.3d at 219.

Do you have a duty to disclose a home's water source in your appraisals?

But to your statement, about it not being an option to include in your appraisals is not my point. It should not be able to be used as a weapon to escape accountability.

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

Thank you for reminding me not only are you expert appraisers, but you are experts at deflection.

You and your colleagues have attempted to deflect to my home inspection which does not determine FHA MPR.

You and your colleagues have attempted to deflect to me being a single mother.

You and your colleagues have attempted to deflect to how many kids I have.

You've even attempted to deflect to a YouTube video of Elvis Presley's song Only Fools rush in.

Now after admitting the appraiser committed negligence and also that you believe there should be no recourse for the persons affected by it,

You're deflecting to the problem is the judge rather than the fact appraisers get to use the intended user clause as a weapon to avoid accountability.

Why are you so evasive about the agents involved and the home inspection? Are you an "investor"? I'm so sorry your flip flopped. I do not care how many kids you have. In fact, being on a waterway seems kinda dangerous for kids. Sounds like you make lots of questionable decisions.