Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Huds_Harm]

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.

Because the agents, the buyer, nor the buyers home inspector determine FHA MPR Tiffany.

Good attempt at further deflecting though and nice insults.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Hey Dublin you never answered my previous question.

Just to make you happy. Of course I identify the water source

So here is a question for you. Did you honestly do you due diligence as a buyer?

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.

As George said. That is a problem you have with the judge and how the law interprets it.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Just to make you happy. Of course I identify the water source

So here is a question for you. Did you honestly do you due diligence as a buyer?

I did. And even if I didn't. It does not absolve the appraiser of their duty to determine the home meets MPR.

As George said. That is a problem you have with the judge and how the law interprets it.

The problem begins with the appraiser USING it as a weapon to avoid accountability. The judge would never need to interpret it if it weren't allowed to be used.

 

[George Hatch]

Professional standards regarding competency and performance are a separate issue from legal liability as adjudicated by the courts. We have repeatedly pointed out to you.

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.

We started off stipulating to negligence (assuming the facts you have alleged are true). So there is no "after admitting" involved. Stop being dramatic. It's your allegation of fraud that we question. You might be right about that, or you might be wrong about that. We don't know and we can't actually tell which of the two is more likely.

We also stipulated that the appraiser is responsible for their errors. The judge in your case issued a ruling that apparently concludes that the appraiser's liability for these errors don't extend to you. We didn't write any of those laws the judge is using to get to that ruling. We didn't legislate them or enact them and we didn't adjudicate your case based on those laws. All of that occurred at the hand of govt. It's not our fault the law doesn't read the way you want it to read. If you want the law to be changed then there's an app for that and it doesn't include lashing out at the appraisal profession for requiring appraisers to disclose the who, what, why and how of their appraisal assignment.

Reporting the Intended use and intended user in an appraisal report isn't a weapon. It's a disclosure of those facts. It's no different than listing the ingredients of a loaf of bread on a bread wrapper. We would be remiss if we didn't show our work as it relates to the decisions of how we build these reports. The fact that the benefits of such disclosure aren't limited only to the users but also includes the appraisers isn't a flaw. It's simply a matter of fairness. The utility of which is supported by the point that you apparently think your odds would be better if you were free to falsely infer the counterfactual of those conditions instead of being left to deal with the ramifications that go along with the actual facts about use/user which are being disclosed.

As for a couple individuals not showing you the respect you think you deserve, that's unfortunate. But it isn't all of us or even most of us. In any case, your hurt feelings are the very least of your problems.

 

[Surf Cat]

My bad Bayou, but I wanted to get your attention. I come in peace.

I was thinking about your situation and I believe you may want to take an alternate route since this has been going on for what, 3 years? What is the saying about doing something over and over and expecting different results? Sure, you may get the appraiser's license revolked but I really don't think you'll get a new septic and well. Especially since you failed once before in court.

It's a hybrid plan first posed by Mejappz in post #274, George Hatch's line of thinking in that you should just forget paying lawyers and just make the necessary repairs, and Terry Rohrer's post #754 where he states to just "walk away" as, he knows the inevitable being the skilled, experienced, appraiser he is.

I believe you should look into a loan modification. I did a lot of appraisals back during the Great Recession to help homeowners keep their properties.

You would strategically default on your loan....3 months or so, then sporadically make payments here and there to keep you in the game. You appear to be pretty good at research given everything you found out about FHA loans, Etc.

FHA National Servicing Center (NSC): The NSC offers loss mitigation programs and informational resources to assist FHA-insured homeowners facing financial hardship. (this is you, given you have to pay for an entire septic and well system, a necessity for living in the dwelling). They can provide guidance on available options, such as FHA-HAMP, Standalone Loan Modification, FHA-HAMP Combination Loan Modification and Partial Claim, and Pre-Foreclosure Sale (PFS)

Look into it.....

 

[Huds_Harm]

Professional standards regarding competency and performance are a separate issue from legal liability as adjudicated by the courts.

Professional standards regarding the intended user clause is a separate issue from legal liability yet it is cowardly used out of context to escape liability instead of per your definition below being no different than listing the ingredients of a loaf of bread wrapper.

In the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 6th edition & USPAP, intended use is defined as, “the use(s) of an appraiser's reported appraisal or appraisal review assignment results, as identified by the appraiser based on communication with the client at the time of the assignment.”

It is not INTENDED to avoid negligence accountability.

Reporting the Intended use and intended user in an appraisal report isn't a weapon. It's a disclosure of those facts. It's no different than listing the ingredients of a loaf of bread on a bread wrapper. We would be remiss if we didn't show our work as it relates to the decisions of how we build these reports. The fact that the benefits of such disclosure aren't limited only to the users but also includes the appraisers isn't a flaw. It's simply a matter of fairness.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing he owed Buyer no duty of care. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for the appraiser. Buyer appealed. The court of appeals reversed. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 states that under certain circumstances liability for negligent representation can be imposed upon one who, in the course of his business, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions. Here, Buyer’s contract allowed her to cancel if the property did not appraise at the purchase price or greater. Appraiser knew this because he reviewed a copy of the purchase contract. The public policy underlying the Restatement §522 provides a basis for imposing a duty of care on the appraiser not only to the lender that contracted for the appraisal but also to the prospective buyer who intends to purchase the home.

So it is ironic you would use the word fairness

As for a couple individuals not showing you the respect you think you deserve, that's unfortunate. But it isn't all of us or even most of us. In any case, your hurt feelings are the very least of your problems.

It is more than a couple and my feelings are far from hurt. Instead, glad it exposes the standard of professionalism in your industry.

 

[Huds_Harm]

My bad Bayou, but I wanted to get your attention. I come in peace.

I was thinking about your situation and I believe you may want to take an alternate route since this has been going on for what, 3 years? What is the saying about doing something over and over and expecting different results? Sure, you may get the appraiser's license revolked but I really don't think you'll get a new septic and well. Especially since you failed once before in court.

It's a hybrid plan first posed by Mejappz in post #274, George Hatch's line of thinking in that you should just forget paying lawyers and just make the necessary repairs, and Terry Rohrer's post #754 where he states to just "walk away" as, he knows the inevitable being the skilled, experienced, appraiser he is.

I believe you should look into a loan modification. I did a lot of appraisals back during the Great Recession to help homeowners keep their properties.

You would strategically default on your loan....3 months or so, then sporadically make payments here and there to keep you in the game. You appear to be pretty good at research given everything you found out about FHA loans, Etc.

FHA National Servicing Center (NSC): The NSC offers loss mitigation programs and informational resources to assist FHA-insured homeowners facing financial hardship. (this is you, given you have to pay for an entire septic and well system, a necessity for living in the dwelling). They can provide guidance on available options, such as FHA-HAMP, Standalone Loan Modification, FHA-HAMP Combination Loan Modification and Partial Claim, and Pre-Foreclosure Sale (PFS)

Look into it.....

Thanks for providing solutions.

 

[George Hatch]

Professional standards regarding the intended user clause is a separate issue from legal liability yet it is cowardly used out of context to escape liability instead of per your definition below being no different than listing the ingredients of a loaf of bread wrapper.

In the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 6th edition & USPAP, intended use is defined as, “the use(s) of an appraiser's reported appraisal or appraisal review assignment results, as identified by the appraiser based on communication with the client at the time of the assignment.”

It is not INTENDED to avoid negligence accountability.


The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing he owed Buyer no duty of care. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for the appraiser. Buyer appealed. The court of appeals reversed. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 states that under certain circumstances liability for negligent representation can be imposed upon one who, in the course of his business, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions. Here, Buyer’s contract allowed her to cancel if the property did not appraise at the purchase price or greater. Appraiser knew this because he reviewed a copy of the purchase contract. The public policy underlying the Restatement §522 provides a basis for imposing a duty of care on the appraiser not only to the lender that contracted for the appraisal but also to the prospective buyer who intends to purchase the home.

So it is ironic you would use the word fairness


It is more than a couple and my feelings are far from hurt. Instead, glad it exposes the standard of professionalism in your industry.

So are you now saying that you prevailed upon appeal? If so, the law worked in your favor.

If that's what happened then I'm curious why you didn't mention it at the outset.

The reason the dictionary references that definition is because that's how it reads in our standards. Our standards define the term being used in the dictionary, not the other way around. The dictionary is just a dictionary. It's not an appraisal standard.

 

[Huds_Harm]

So are you now saying that you prevailed upon appeal? If so, the law worked in your favor.

If that's what happened then I'm curious why you didn't mention it at the outset.

That is an example of a different case.

 

[George Hatch]

Oh, so that wasn't how your case has progressed. Yet. I'm glad I prefaced my comment with that "if that's what happened".

One of your complaints seems to be that it was unethical for the appraiser to even attempt to argue that their responsibilities in this portion of the assignment didn't extend to you. I would point out to you that if that argument was offered at all it would have been the atty actually making it, and that the basis for them making that argument was per the applicable law; not per the requirements of USPAP. The job of the atty is to advocate for their client's interests by use of every legal alternative that's available to them. The atty is not expected to act like an appraiser because the atty is not engaged in appraisal practice. USPAP doesn't apply to the actions of the atty.

Render unto the atty and judge that which is theirs'.