Me thinks there is something wrong with it also.

[Riick]

Nothing is black and white in appraising.

Oh.. I don't know... blatant fraud looks pretty black to me, while a nice piece of work looks about opposite in color.
Neither one is gray.
But, I'm an appraiser, IT'S MY JOB TO MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS.

 

[Michigan CG]

Oh.. I don't know... blatant fraud looks pretty black to me, while a nice piece of work looks about opposite in color.
Neither one is gray.
But, I'm an appraiser, IT'S MY JOB TO MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS.

Rick, you are correct in that statement, and blatant fraud is just that. However, relative to the OP subject, it is too early to determine that based on the limited information presented and other market information that has not been determined yet.

 

[Rufus]

However, relative to the OP subject, it is too early to determine that based on the limited information presented and other market information that has not been determined yet.

Tim, I think this statement of Ray's is a good indication that the sales used in the report were not the best available:

I run the MLS for the area and find there are 30 sales of four units in the last 18 months.

 

[Louis Pompeo]

Unfair Practice

As an appraiser and reviewer for over 30 years, I have learned at least one thing in life and in my profession.....

Treat people the way you would like to be treated.

I hope that someday, I don't come to the AppraisersForum and see a thread started by someone who is reviewing my work and has not even done the complete review yet - but is handing out shovels to all to help him bury me.

Do your job Ray! In confidence! Not on the forum.

If you don't know how to do it, then refer it to someone who does.

You're here, looking for condemnation of an appraiser and haven't even performed your complete review yet.

What you are doing is amateur, mindless, reckless, and contemptuous.

 

[Ray Miller]

Are the duplexes in the same area and of the same quality of the subject property? From what you post, you live in rural Wisconsin. These two questions would be big factors in the puzzle.

Yes they are in the same area, they are better quality then the subject.

Based on the fact that smaller tracts of land or investment properties tend to sell for a higher price/SF or unit than larger tracts/units due to sheer magnitude of the investment you might be correct. However, investors in smaller rental properties tend to be less educated than investors in larger properties. Therefore the use of 2-unit properties could very well produce a lower value depending on the specific market.


Another factor to consider is vacancy. If you own a four unit property and have one vacancy for an extended period of time you are losing 25% of your income. With a two unit property you have 50% vacancy, and might have a problem paying the mortgage.

Debt ratios might also be considered, and affect a cap rate (or what a banker will loan, and in what terms) in some properties. What is the loan rate on a duplex vs a four or six unit property? Significant, I would guess depending on the credit rating of the borrower and a credible appraisal.

These are things you need to consider, but of course I am playing devil's advocate.

Understand

Nothing is black and white in appraising.

Ample number of sales of 4-unit to establish a market value. The use of 2-unit up the value by 16.5% over the 4- units.

 

[Ray Miller]

As an appraiser and reviewer for over 30 years, I have learned at least one thing in life and in my profession.....

Treat people the way you would like to be treated.

I hope that someday, I don't come to the AppraisersForum and see a thread started by someone who is reviewing my work and has not even done the complete review yet - but is handing out shovels to all to help him bury me. This post was an example of the poor work. There is no indication of who did this report, where the report was done and to what property.

Do your job Ray! In confidence! Not on the forum.

As stated this is an example of the work being done in the area. There have been so many appraisals that tend to lead to fraud in this recreational area its not even funny. Yet they continue to get by with it and are still trying to do it.

Using 2-Unit when there are ample 4-unit sales????

If you don't know how to do it, then refer it to someone who does.

Yes, I know how to do it; I have been doing reviews for this bank for a number of years.

You're here, looking for condemnation of an appraiser and haven't even performed your complete review yet. No I posted an example of an appraisal I just received for review that has problems. Like Value Hitting.

What you are doing is amateur, mindless, reckless, and contemptuous.

I don't think so. I prefer not to burry my head in the sand. It also lets other appraisers know what is going on.

This is just one example.

Can I say I got my BIA reservation work because another appraiser did not know that on BIA Reservation Land, you can have Fee Simple inter mix with Lease Hold and who holds the lease for the Nation.

Can I say appraisers using investor sales to establish a higher value for condo units? Can I say appraiser not noting on the appraisal reports that the units are condotels so the loans would fly.

Can I say appraisers using in resort combined sale of land one year and HUD MFG the next year as comparable sales to make the higher value when sales out side of the resort were 33% to 50% less of the same type units.

Can I say appraisers call ing HUD MFG, mods and not noting the HUD/MFG data?

Can I say appraisers using 1 to 5 acres properties as comparables on 40 to 160 acres properties? When ample comps are there for the 40 to 160 acres properties but just make the value less.

Can I say appraisers using lake front on a couple of the largest lakes in Wisconsin for comparables for homes on very small lakes with no adjustments?

Can I say an appraiser saying the market was not in decline and had stabilized and may go into decline? But saying every thing is fine so the appraisal would fly. Yet the market now has proven it did go into decline again.


Can I say using comparables with $120K horse barns and related out buildings for a home with a small shop, with no adjustment.

Can I say appraisers for getting to mention that the owner had a commercial fishing license on the Mississippi River, had a commercial fish processing plant in the basement of their home the building was in and bait and tackle store on the same property. Calling all a single family res.

Can I say the appraiser failing to note on the report the DOT 10 sec. rule for driveway access and the property had no legal access?

Can I say the appraiser failing to note that the subject property single family home, if it burnt down over 40% could not be rebuilt because it was zone interstate access.

Can I say countless times that the zoning was incorrect and not single family but Ag? So the loans would fly.

Can I say the appraiser failing to note and give value and look for similar comparables because the property has a certified trout stream crossing it.

Can I say the appraiser failed to note and use similar comparables to the 24/7 native saw mill next to the single family 5 ac. property.

The list is almost endless. So do we as appraiser need not to tell one another what is happening out here?

Any one that knows the area would know from the get go that there were ample 4 units and you should not be using 2-units. Even the investing bank knew it was not right, that why they have sent it out for review.

 

[Louis Pompeo]

I didn't stutter.

Why would someone use duplex units where there are four units that have sold? Is my thinking messed up?

Haven’t had a chance to get into the meat of the report yet.

Me thinks that this is going to cost some beaver pelts and a fox pelt on two.

Like I said........Reckless...

 

[Louis Pompeo]

From the Wisconsin Appraiser Board Website.

Public Information...

STATE OF WISCONSIN
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION AND LICENSING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF :
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS : ORDER OF
AGAINST : SUMMARY SUSPENSION
RAY K. MILLER, JR., : LS07022823APP
RESPONDENT. :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE case file numbers 05 APP 044, 06 APP 062, 06 APP 084, 06 APP 102, & 06 APP 119​

This matter came before the Real Estate Appraisers Board on February 28, 2007 as scheduled and noticed in the Notice and Petition for Summary Suspension. Attorney John Nicholas Schweitzer appeared for the Division of Enforcement of the Department of Regulation and Licensing. The Respondent appeared with his legal counsel, Attorney George B. Strother, IV of Krekeler Strother SC, 15 N Pinckney St # 200, PO Box 828, Madison, WI 53701-0828. This Order is based on the testimony of Mr. Miller and the documents submitted as evidence during the hearing.

FINDINGS OF FACT​

1. The Respondent is Ray K. Miller, Jr. At all times relevant to these facts Mr. Miller held real estate appraiser's license number 4-1520 issued by the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing on February 6, 2003. Mr. Miller does business as Miller Land and Livestock Co. LLC.
Mr. Miller's last-known address on file with the Department of Regulation and Licensing is W3410 Dore Road, Suite A, Lyndon Station, WI 53944.

Informal Complaint 05 APP 044

2. An informal complaint was received by the Department on July 8, 2005 and given a Division of Enforcement case number of 05 APP 044. The complainant was Oak Street Mortgage in St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint related to an appraisal report for property at 712 Cornelia Street in Janesville, Wisconsin, signed by Ray K. Miller on June 21, 2005.

3. Mr. Miller produced four different versions of a report to be sent to the client. designated “a”, “ab”, “abc”, and “abcd”. The report identified as “RM-2169ab” contains the following errors, inconsistencies, and USPAP violations:
a. - Marketing time is checked as more than 6 months but the report later states 30-60 days.
b. All three comparable sales, at 1517 Blaine, 1239 Blaine, and 732 Eisenhower, were inappropriate.

4. Miller told the Department that the inappropriate comps in the “ab” report was an autofill problem, and that he had actually used entirely different comparable sales. Mr. Miller has not supplied any information about a different appraisal which would have used those three comparable sales.

5. The “abcd” report contains errors, inconsistencies, and USPAP violations:
a. Miller made the following statement on page 8, all of which appears to be incorrect: “The appraiser did not avoid crossing over definite noticeable boundaries (i.e. highway/freeway, major arteries, rivers/creeks, railroad tracks, commercial districts, etc.). The appraiser did not avoid comparable selection from an adjacent neighborhood that better suits the design style or utility of the subject property. For instance, the subject property has a number of acres and is of log type construction. The appraiser did not consider the over improvement of the property but did travel greater distance, in other neighborhoods, to locate sales of homes with acreages and types of construction.”
b. At the bottom of page 7 Miller referred to an extraordinary assumption regarding well and septic which appears to be completely unrelated to the subject property.

Informal Complaint 06 APP 062

6. An informal complaint was received by the Department on April 24, 2006 from an anonymous complainant, and given a Division of Enforcement case number of 06 APP 062. The complaint related to an appraisal report for property at 223 West Limit Road in Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, signed by Ray K. Miller on March 30, 2006.

7. Miller’s report for his appraisal of property at 223 West Limit Road in Lyndon Station contains the following errors, inconsistencies, and USPAP violations:
a. On page 3 of the report Miller checked the box for partial basement, but on page 4 he reported that there is no basement.
b. On page 13 Miller said the subject “has a GLA of 1845 sf” but in the rest of the report he listed GLA as 1640sf.
c. On page 3 Miller checked the box stating that he analyzed the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction, but on page 4 he stated that there is no contract for sale of the property.
d. In the grid, Miller described comparable sales 2 and 3 as ranches, but the photos do not support those descriptions.
e. On page 15 Miller stated “all three comparables are very similar in size, and located very near to the subject,” and in the following paragraph he wrote “in order to find sales that bracket the subject property, it would be necessary to consider sales from other subdivisions that are located a good distance away or that may or may not be subject to the same economic and geographic influences as the subject. Therefore, the use of these three sales is preferred to the use of an inferior sale from another subdivision,” yet all of Miller’s comparable sales are 10 to 62 miles away from the subject.
f. On page 13 Miller said “the appraiser did avoid crossing over definite noticeable boundaries (i.e. highway/freeway, major arteries, rivers/creeks, railroad tracks, commercial districts, etc.) The appraiser did avoid comparable selection from an adjacent neighborhood that better suits the design style or utility of the subject property”, yet he chose comps from 10-62 miles away in order to match the design style, and it would not be possible to use sales this far away without crossing over various boundaries, especially since on page 1 Miller defined the neighborhood boundaries as the Township of Viroqua, and none of the sales are from this township.

Informal Complaint 06 APP 084

8. An informal complaint was received by the Department on June 19, 2006, and given a Division of Enforcement case number of 06 APP 084. The complainant was Secured Funding Corporation in Costa Mesa, California. The complaint related to an appraisal report for property at 900 Whispering Way, Unit A, in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, signed by Ray K. Miller on June 5, 2006.

9. Miller’s report for his appraisal of property at 900 Whispering Way, Unit A, in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin contained the following errors, inconsistencies, and USPAP violations:
a. The property was incorrectly described as being in Sparta instead of in the Village of Cottage Grove.
b. The building is incorrectly described as 1 story instead of 2 stories.

Informal Complaint 06 APP 102

10. An informal complaint was received by the Department on July 28, 2006, and given a Division of Enforcement case number of 06 APP 102. The complainant was All American Mortgage in Madison, Wisconsin. The complaint related to an appraisal report for property at 14876 County Hwy A in Viola, Wisconsin, signed by Ray K. Miller on April 18, 2006.

11. Miller’s report for his appraisal of property at 14876 County Hwy A in Viola, Wisconsin, contained the following errors, inconsistencies, and USPAP violations:
a. Although the appraisal was done for property at 14876 County Hwy A in Viola, the report at the following places referred to property at 20359 Foley Lane in Viola:
- line 1 of page 3,
- line 3 of page 4,
- in the caption to the first photo of the subject property on page 17, and
- on line 2 of page 20.
b. Although the estimate of value was $158,000, the comparable sales were $250,000, $270,000, and $270,000, meaning that all three comparable sales were from 58% to 70% higher than the subject property.
c. The report says on p. 3 that there is no basement finish (and none is included in the cost approach on p.5), but it says on p. 4 that there is finish and makes upward adjustments to the subject from the sales.
d. The report says on p. 3 that there are 0 fireplaces and on p. 4 that there is 1 fireplace.
e. The report makes reference in the last paragraph of p. 13 that five sales and then four sales were used, when only three sales are used. The sales selected are all clearly far superior to the subject in curb appeal and house and lot size. The choice of comps provides no lower bracket for the subject in either house or site size.
f. The cost approach to value is $17,292 below the value by sales comparison, without an explanation for why a buyer would pay more for a property than it would cost to reproduce the property, particularly in an area where there is abundant land available.

Informal Complaint 06 APP 119

12. An informal complaint was received by the Department on October 13, 2006, and given a Division of Enforcement case number of 06 APP 119. The complainant was the homeowner, and the complaint related to an appraisal report for her property at N1095 Arbor Lake North in Lyndon Station, Wisconsin, signed by Ray K. Miller on July 25, 2006.

13. Mr. Miller was asked by the Department of Regulation and Licensing to provide copies of “all his working documents, notes, correspondence with anyone, and time records” for this appraisal. His response received 1-17-07 did not include any billing records, did not include a copy of the invoice for $1,400, and instead included a copy of an invoice for $350.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW​

The legal requirements for the summary suspension of the Respondent's Real Estate Appraiser's License have been fulfilled pursuant to Wis. Adm. Code, chapter RL 6:
Mr. Miller has engaged in and is likely to engage in conduct such that the public health, safety or welfare imperatively requires emergency suspension of Mr. Miller's real estate appraiser's license.

ORDER​

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Real Estate Appraiser’s License number 4-1520 issued to Ray K. Miller is SUSPENDED as of the date of service under sec. 6.08, Wis. Admin. Code and sec. 801.11, Stats. for the service of summons. The license shall remain suspended until a final decision and order is issued in the disciplinary proceeding, or until further order of the Board. Respondent shall surrender his credentials immediately upon service to the following address:
Department of Regulation and Licensing
Attn: Pamila Majewski, Paralegal
P.O. Box 8935
Madison, WI 53708

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Miller may request a hearing to show cause why this suspension order should not be continued, and he may file such request with the Real Estate Appraisers Board at Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935. A hearing on such request shall be scheduled within 20 days of the date the Department receives such request, unless Mr. Miller agrees to a later date.

Signed and dated February 28th, 2007

FOR THE REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS BOARD:


Mark Kowbel, Chair

 

[Ray Miller]

Yep, now post the judges order reversing the states claim. Under stand that the state is using interm reports and not the finial appraisal report that was sent to the lender.

Understand that we have discredited their expert witness in the first hearing, and are doing so in the second hearing.

Understand that the judge advised the state that they may have violated state eithics, violated my civil rights.

Understand the judge order the state to pay for the show cause hearing and not to charge me.

Understand that I have a $20M claim against the state.

Understand that the state reads this web site and presents information that I post here before the judge.

Understand that I have no fear of the state or what is posted.

Understand that a number of Banks, AMCs and Investment Bankers have reinstated me, I continue to do regular appraisals and review work for them on a weekly basics. Understand I have a number of law firms and insurance companies that I continue to work for as well. All of which are happy with my work.

I think you can find any number of threads that have been posted on this topic with the same information you just posted. You might want to read them.

 

[Ray Miller]

Here one I got in today from a large bank, that I had done business in the past. I failed last year to notify then the judge order me reinstated.

========================

​

From: VVM [mailto:VVM@zzz.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:06 PM
To: Ray Miller
Subject: Ray K. Miller Jr. - Normal - Status

Thank you for the information that you have supplied. We have removed you from our Exclusionary List.


Regards,

KK

Valuation Vendor Management

____________________________________________________________________
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please
let the sender know and delete the message. Thank you.

​

From: Ray Miller [mailto:auction@jvlnet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:21 AM
To: VVM
Subject: RE: Ray K. Miller Jr. - Exclusionary
Importance: High


VVM,

Here is the reinstatement order. I could go into detail about this.