• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

When USPAP came out, I knew USPAP was disadvantage for appraisers. It wasn't written clear. Public doesn't have to take hours of class every two years to understand it. It can be used against us in how it allowed users on nonusers (what does that mean to the public) to use it.
You're in over your head on this part of the discussion and are only serving to cloud the explanations that have already been given to the OP.
 
You're in over your head on this part of the discussion and are only serving to cloud the explanations that have already been given to the OP.
I'd been saying USPAP is confusing. Never written clearly in the beginning but that's our bible.
Let her sue USPAP.
 
So your due diligence was reliance on the appraisal being approved by the lender? Where did you get that from?
No one said that. I said show me where it is a buyers duty to determine property eligibility.
 
No one said that. I said show me where it is a buyers duty to determine property eligibility.
Buyers don't have duty to determine property eligibility in an appraisal. What are you thinking?
Again it's lender's concern not yours except your income qualifications.
 
Ooops I forgot to add this part

"
Texas law recognizes several torts that involve intentional misrepresentation, including fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation:
  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
    A tort claim that occurs when a defendant intentionally or recklessly misrepresents a fact or opinion to pressure a party into acting or not acting in a certain way.
  • Fraudulent inducement
    A type of common-law fraud that occurs in the context of a contract. To win a fraudulent inducement claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a material misrepresentation, knew it was false, and intended the plaintiff to rely on it. The plaintiff must also show that they relied on the misrepresentation and that it caused them harm. A claim for fraudulent inducement may fail if the contract's terms contradict the alleged misrepresentations or if the plaintiff didn't investigate red flags during negotiations.
 
Ooops I forgot to add this part

"
Texas law recognizes several torts that involve intentional misrepresentation, including fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation:
  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
    A tort claim that occurs when a defendant intentionally or recklessly misrepresents a fact or opinion to pressure a party into acting or not acting in a certain way.
  • Fraudulent inducement
    A type of common-law fraud that occurs in the context of a contract. To win a fraudulent inducement claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a material misrepresentation, knew it was false, and intended the plaintiff to rely on it. The plaintiff must also show that they relied on the misrepresentation and that it caused them harm. A claim for fraudulent inducement may fail if the contract's terms contradict the alleged misrepresentations or if the plaintiff didn't investigate red flags during negotiations.
I was just going to let the verbiage pass, but since it came up - reading is fundamental


"intended the plaintiff (our OP) to rely on it", and plaintiff (our OP) must also show that they relied on the misrepresentation

That's how a lawyer is going to argue that point.
 
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top