Lawyers suing AMCs

[NC Appraising]

Better move on this case died and was a joke.

It's still active unless chatgpt is wrong?

​

​

ChatGPT said:​

Yes — the Florida lawsuit you’re referring to is still active as of early 2026. It was first filed on December 16, 2025 and, since then, there’s no indication that the case has been dismissed or resolved; instead it’s just beginning to move forward in the Florida state court system.

Here’s what we know about its status:

• The case — Arnold v. Appraisal Nation, LLC, AMC Links, LLC, and United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC — was filed as a class action in Broward County Circuit Court, alleging deceptive and unfair practices related to appraisal fees charged to borrowers.
• Because the complaint was only filed in December 2025, it’s early in the litigation timeline. Cases like this generally proceed through initial motions, discovery, and other pre-trial phases before any hearing on the merits. There is no public record indicating dismissal, settlement, or final judgment as of early 2026.
• Reports discussing the lawsuit in legal blogs and appraisal-industry outlets treat it as ongoing and developing, which means the parties are still in the pre-trial stage and the case hasn’t concluded.

 

[djd09]

isn't that lawyer a part of a crn committee..

 

[OSU Beavers]

Best explanation. Start with the states.

Mortgage Lender and Appraisal Management Companies Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Appraisal Management Fee Disclosure: Is TRID a Defense or a Detriment? — Garris Horn LLP

On December 16, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in Florida court against two appraisal management companies (AMCs) and a large wholesale mortgage lender. The lawsuit alleges deceptive and unfair practices in violation of Florida’s trade practices statute, and fraudulent and negligen

www.garrishorn.com

Second, the mortgage industry should pay close attention to this case, and any similar cases regarding AMC fees. I have seen many, if not most, mortgage lenders not break out the AMC fee on the TRID forms, which is a compliant way to disclose such fees on the forms. But if state courts begin to find that such disclosure method is unfair, deceptive, or worse, fraudulent under state law, mortgage lenders and investors could find themselves facing class action lawsuits and significant liability.

Complaining about appraisal fees is just going to push borrowers to less expensive alternatives rather than selecting a fair cost plus system. Nobody cares as long as the loan closes and the "Valuation Fee" is on par with a Happy Meal.

 

[NC Appraising]

Complaining about appraisal fees is just going to push borrowers to less expensive alternatives rather than selecting a fair cost plus system. Nobody cares as long as the loan closes and the "Valuation Fee" is on par with a Happy Meal.

Sorry, but that is they exact opposite. I am not complaining about the appraisers fee. If you go back and read any of my posts on this, my belief is that the overage should be returned to the borrower.

What I want is a cost plus system

It has nothing to do with appraisal fees. It's about protecting the borrower and full transparency. The whole Schick was lowering the cost for the borrower, but appraisers got 100% of the blame. When borrowers see a appraisal bill for $700 they think that is what the appraisers got.

If the AMC can find an appraiser for $300 and all else is equal, so be it. Free market. Return the overage to the borrower. Remember, for PDCs, appraisals, hybrids, etc., the borrower is not allowed to shop for the lowest price. This is how AMCs can pocket or skim their money.

 

[Zoe]

There are a few big lawsuits going on with commingling of fees. Joan Trice is probably nervous.

If you recall, the original law was written for fees to be separated on truth in lending disclosures. It got changed at last minute because it would be too confusing.

How in the world can more disclosure be confusing?

 

[George Hatch]

I strongly doubt Joan Trice has reason to oppose full disclosure. For that matter, I doubt the majority of AMCs have reason to oppose full disclosure. Most or all of them have already been disclosing that info to the lenders. Its the lenders who aren't disclosing to their borrowers. Many of them, anyway.

Think about it: if a lender WASN'T already getting that info from an AMC they could simply ask for it as part of their SOP. What are the AMCs going to do? Refuse? For what reason?

 

[Zoe]

I strongly doubt Joan Trice has reason to oppose full disclosure. For that matter, I doubt the majority of AMCs have reason to oppose full disclosure. Most or all of them have already been disclosing that info to the lenders. Its the lenders who aren't disclosing to their borrowers. Many of them, anyway.

Think about it: if a lender WASN'T already getting that info from an AMC they could simply ask for it as part of their SOP. What are the AMCs going to do? Refuse? For what reason?

Okay, the reason is because it would pit AMC against AMC on truth in lending disclosures and it would remove incentive for AMC to go with fastest and cheapest.

When a veteran gets a VA loan there is no commingling of fees. The appraisal fee on truth in lending disclosures is the appraisal fee.

Some lenders have part ownership in AMCs and they get a profit off of whatever an AMC profits on fastest and cheapest.

You are not that slow George. Appraisal fee $1,200. Appraiser fee $300. Part of appraisal fee goes back to the lender if they are part owner in AMC.

 

[Zoe]

That is like removing healthcare subsidies to Health insurance companies. It will hurt hospitals but health insurance companies will raise prices across the board to everybody.

 

[George Hatch]

Okay, the reason is because it would pit AMC against AMC on truth in lending disclosures and it would remove incentive for AMC to go with fastest and cheapest.

When a veteran gets a VA loan there is no commingling of fees. The appraisal fee on truth in lending disclosures is the appraisal fee.

Some lenders have part ownership in AMCs and they get a profit off of whatever an AMC profits on fastest and cheapest.

You are not that slow George. Appraisal fee $1,200. Appraiser fee $300. Part of appraisal fee goes back to the lender if they are part owner in AMC.

If the AMCs are all operating off the same limitations as each other then contributes to a more level playing field between them.

I think the assumption is subject to challenge that separating the fees in the disclosures will result in appraisers being paid the entirety of the amount formerly described as "appraisal fee" or whatever term they're currently using.

2025 disclosure:
"Appraisal fee of $700"

2026 disclosure:
"Appraisal fee of $300"
"AMC fee of $400"

The sum is the same, the split is the same, only the disclosure itself is different. Even if the borrowers push back on the amount of the AMC fee that doesn't mean they're going to agitate for an increase to the appraiser's fee. I believe most people outside the lending business already think appraisers get paid too much.

 

[Sadie]

Okay, the reason is because it would pit AMC against AMC on truth in lending disclosures and it would remove incentive for AMC to go with fastest and cheapest.

When a veteran gets a VA loan there is no commingling of fees. The appraisal fee on truth in lending disclosures is the appraisal fee.

Some lenders have part ownership in AMCs and they get a profit off of whatever an AMC profits on fastest and cheapest.

You are not that slow George. Appraisal fee $1,200. Appraiser fee $300. Part of appraisal fee goes back to the lender if they are part owner in AMC.

Re: The lenders owning an AMC. This was an issue from the beginning. From what I have seen is at least 2 of the larger banks have their own inhouse AMC. What they did was split the appraisal dept away from the lending part. It seems to be working ok.