More NCAB

[bradellis]

Austin,

I have not said any of them were being treated fairly; nor have I said that these boards are acting appropriately in these cases. Without all the facts, I can opine only on what I know from their posts.

I know nothing about David's case- this is the first I have seen his name. Perhaps it is in another string. In Tom's case, I already said I thought NCAB was acting inappropriately- but it is a matter of state law. Even so, they may well still be wrong.

In Steve's case, it is a USPAP issue, but not one any of us have really had trouble interpreting. 41 appraisals went out with his signature on them, indicating he was taking full responsibility for their content. Relying upon another to do the work and accepting it without so much as a cursory check of the available data (assuming that is the case) seems to me to be a case of not using due diligence. Even so, I have already opined that the fine seems quite excessive- based upon what Steve has told us.

Getting appointed to a state board is a political activity in virtually every state. Gubernatorial appointments have always been plums. Not surprised that Bob did not get his appointment if he did not play politics. It is just that simple.

All of this is more fuel for my suggestion that this be taken out of the hands of the states and put under federal control. While there will still be politics, it will be far more open and evident, and with ALL of us watching, it will be much harder to get away with these overblown ego-driven decisions.

Federal licensing requiring conformance to USPAP. If the states then want their own laws, maybe they will be forced to make the extra state licensing of appraising a mandatory activity if they want to regulate it at their level as well. A LOT harder to pass such laws when they are NOT mandated by federal legislation. My guess is that they would give up.

Brad Ellis, IFA,RAA

 

[Austin]

Bradellis: In Virginia up until this year we had to take a state mandated state law class of 4 hours every two years. The teachers I have had for the 5 times I have taken the class were former and present appraisal board chairmen. At the last law class I took the teacher was an MAI from our AI chapter whose term expired and he was not reappointed to the board. He was asked why and he responded: “I got appointed because I made a large campaign contribution to Gov. George Allen campaign and bought my appointment, and I refused to make a campaign contribution to Gov. Gilmore’s campaign and was not reappointed.”
Second: I don’t buy having the Feds taking over the process will solve the problem. It will make it worse. If we can’t deal with one or two out of control state boards, what would we do if the Feds got out of hand? This would just up the ante of campaign contributions and add fuel to an already a seedbed of political corruption.
As to David Johnson’s case, you can read it on his Webb site Ncboardwatch.org/ I think is the address. Steve Vertin read the entire “800” page transcript and it took him 8 hours to read it. Ask Steve for his opinion. It is in the achieves. As I understand it, this case drug on for about three years over a dispute over a location adjustment after the property later sold within $2,000 of David’s appraisal and sold for $52,000 more than the appraised price of the person who brought the charges against David and who made the location adjustment. A USPAP case prosecuted by a board that has no demonstrated credentials on the subject of USPAP. And I might add, both Tom and David have been critical of the NCAB for years, so what does that suggest?
I repeat once again: In light of the vigor with which these three cases were prosecuted in light of the gravity of the charge, there is a total lack of moral and intellectual balance suggesting some hidden motive behind the prosecution of these cases. You don’t send in the B-52’s to bomb a village because some of the people that live there are litterbugs.
There is nothing wrong with the present system that a little adult supervision cannot cure. It is obvious to me if to no one else, that given the nature of the appraisal business, it is not possible to prosecute differences in interpretation of USPAP provisions and certainly not to get involved in theory and appraisal procedure. There are serious questions and gross inconsistencies in all so called accepted appraisal practices and as has been pointed in this thread, USPAP interpretations is a difficult subject even for those dedicated to the subject and who have acquired the credentials to do so, and who desire to be instructors.

 

[David C. Johnson]

<span style='color:darkblue'>Brad Ellis,

Regarding Steve Vertin's case, you write the following (and have written similar text elsewhere on AppraisersForum recently):

"In Steve's case, it is a USPAP issue, but not one any of us
have really had trouble interpreting. 41 appraisals went out
with his signature on them, indicating he was taking full
responsibility for their content. Relying upon another to do
the work and accepting it without so much as a cursory
check of the available data (assuming that is the case)
seems to me to be a case of not using due diligence.
Even so, I have already opined that the fine seems quite
excessive- based upon what Steve has told us."

What have you found, or heard, was alleged to be wrong with these appraisals? Not that it was required of him to do so at all, but I thought I understood him to say that he did in fact make a point to view and review all of the comps; is that not right? Would that not demonstrate a higher level due diligence? The appraiser he hired apparently had an exceptionally good reputation -- and had even done work for a friend of yours, or someone you know and admire, perhaps?

One of my older brother's friends in law school in the early eighties (who I met once) graduated at the top of the class at Chapel Hill. She was some kind of editor for an important legal publication there and was hired right out of school by Nixon's old firm. Maybe hard to believe, but even then that was a prestigious, very highly pursued position, and probably still is. She was considered top notch and certainly unusually responsible and showed unusual competence, and obviously, promise. Incredibly, after a few years, she ended up stealing from her parents and others (including a car), was fired from the firm and was forced into an extended rehab as a result of an apparent drug addiction (a cocaine psychosis, I believe) that she had acquired during her time there. Astounded everyone. Totally unexpected by anyone and everyone. People can change in very unexpected, inexplicable ways. Have you ever entrusted a trusted contractor?

Brad, from reading your posts, I have reason to believe you may not be very fair-minded, and in particular, may be inclined to treat Steve unfairly on this forum when you get or make a chance. I read your post where he (very correctly in my opinion) called you on an obvious violation of logic, if not common sense, from one of your posts in a previous thread he started some time ago. You expressed your displeasure and warned him at the time -- in print -- something to the affect that he could now "live with the consequences, if any." I read another one of your posts were you mention something to the affect that "pay back is hell" regarding another displeasure. I feel somewhat obliged to point this out. As I mentioned, you have commented on his case several times recently.

Again, you wrote from above:

Even so, I have already opined that the fine seems quite
excessive- based upon what Steve has told us."

Yes, Sir, I would say the costs to Steve have been quite excessive (and we are all fortunate that much of his costs will ultimately help improve the profession for all of us). Compare his costs to the following"costs":

One of the board members sitting during the outrageous episode forced on me by another questionable board -- the North Carolina Appraisal Board (NCAB) -- very quietly accepted an offered, unpublished Administrative Warning from the NCAB when a trainee of his mis-measured a house by 600 SF (Hell, that was twice as much as the complainant's employee mis-measured the house in question in the complaint he filed against my appraisal, where I -- undisputedly, I might add -- measured it correctly, and also valued it correctly. Confused? Don't feel bad, absolutely nothing makes sense at that particular board -- and I am not suggesting these two boards are comparable). But again, what is your understanding of what was alleged to have been wrong with the appraisals Steve supervised?

You know, not only can we never know the motivation for the complaintant's complaint in Steve's case as the complainant did not identify him / herself, and was never identified by the OBRE (if they ever knew), we can never really know what merit there may, or may not, have been behind that board's charges, or their hearing case. Isn't that right? Why is it that we cannot know this, Brad? This is not a trick question at all. What violation of the same rules Steve allegedly violated creates this question regarding the of merit, or not, to the charges and to the case?

Well, we agree somewhat on one issue. That's good:

"All of this is more fuel for my suggestion that this be
taken out of the hands of the states and put under
federal control. While there will still be politics, it will
be far more open and evident, and with ALL of us
watching, it will be much harder to get away with
these overblown ego-driven decisions."

I would like to see the ASC very rigorously test the competence of prospective state board members. This way, the appointor can keep the loot (yep, they may need it to be competitive for election) and the unqualified prospective board member gets educated whether it is sufficient to actually serve or not. And those too lazy to learn what they will be entrusted to enforce will know not to even fantasize about such a board position. Full federal control is a potential better solution depending on the details. As we all know where the devil can be, it depends on a good analysis of the actual proposal itself.

Austin, you write:

"As to David Johnson's case, you can read it on his Web
site Ncboardwatch.org/ I think is the address."

I sure did consider that name for the domain and it too was available. When I found www.boardwatch.org was available, I was surprised and pleased. It left open the potential in the future for the site to have nationwide significance if the issue of problem appraisal boards turned out to be more national in nature (in addition to the possibility for it to be applicable to other types of state boards as well, if desired). At some point I hope to donate the domain to Ralph Nader, Inc., or a similar public watchdog organization. By the way, don't be too hard on Ralph. Statistically speaking, you personally know someone who would not be alive and healthy today if he had never been born or had burned up in a Pinto.

Thank you for your spending the time to become versed on that case, Austin. That situation/farce helps exemplify, as do others, why STD-3 cannot be ignored by appraisal boards. For every appraiser who speaks out about such abuses which could be prevented by STD-3 compliance, there are certainly many others who choose to stay quiet (which is very understandable). I agree with your overall assessment. Steve Vertin did read these entire transcripts, for which I am also grateful. One note for accuracy, there were more on the order of 300 pages, I believe -- but that's plenty and it could sure take a full day to read.

I think the following is particularly well said, and particularly in light of the fact that some of these boards have shown a propensity to "re-attack" after inflicting the first reputation assault on a selected appraiser -- and it is all about the appraisers' reputation -- that's what these boards and/or some individual board members, and at times some of the staff, often want:

"I repeat once again: In light of the vigor with which these three
cases were prosecuted in light of the gravity of the charge, there
is a total lack of moral and intellectual balance suggesting some
hidden motive behind the prosecution of these cases. You don’t
send in the B-52’s to bomb a village because some of the people
that live there are litterbugs.

There is nothing wrong with the present system that a little adult
supervision cannot cure." -- nice.

Regards,

David C. Johnson, Raleigh, NC</span>

 

[bradellis]

David,

Yes, I have, and I believe quite correctly, questioned Steve Vertin's actions. He said he signed the reports; therefore, he takes responsibility for both the development of the opinions of value and for the contents of the reports- each one of them. And he knew that was the case.

From my recollection of his posts, he said an investigator turned up 100+ more comps than did the "trusted" appraiser he used- even after the "trusted" appraiser told him that there were absolutely no others available. He also said, as I recall, that none of the extra comps were as good or better than the ones used.

Therefore, I have NOT jumped to the conclusion that there was a single thing wrong with ANY of those reports. I have not read them and cannot know. YOU have not read them and cannot know. What we BOTH know, however, is that Steve ought to have checked the data himself. His not doing so causes a potential problem for him. USPAP required him to consider ALL the relevant data and there was simply no way for him to know whether or not the missing data was relevant or not since he did not look at it.

Why did he get turned in? Who knows? Perhaps there WAS something wrong with the reports, perhaps there was NOTHING wrong with them. That is something neither of us knows. Anyone can turn in anyone who is licensed. Heck, I can even turn in my barber if I do not like the haricut he gives me. Fair? Probably not- unless he scraped off part of my scalp- but he is licensed, so it is part of the deal.

Your story about the lawyer tuned dope addict is a very good case. A trusted person who went off the deep end- can happen in any family and to anyone. But, you failed to take it to its conclusion. IF that lawyer had blown a case due to his addiction, it would have been incumbent upon the LAW FIRM to advise the judge AND the client would have received a new trial. In addition, the law firm would be held responsible for the actions of its attorney. That is no different from Steve being held accountable for the actions of his sub-contractor.

It may well be that the sub did her job adequately. If so, the court should find for Steve. If not, then he will have to deal with that.

As to your other short quotes, supposedly attributable to me (and I think the first was, but not the other, but it is really inconsequential), they were certainly taken out of context.

You now accuse me of being unfair. Ha! I've been called worse things. But the fact of the matter is that there are many many IL appraisers who have turned to me after having charges brought against them. I've had so many in my USPAP classes, so I got the calls. I counseled each and every one and tried to help as much as possible. NO, I am not going to name names- they are NOT as brave as Steve is, and they talked to me confidentially, so I will not breach that trust.

I'll tell you that in each case, except one, there was a breach of USPAP- but most were quite minor. Almost all got a minor slap on the wrist- a $300 fine and a course requirement. It is due to this that I have maintained that, in most cases, the IL board has been very fair. All these appraisers remembered what they were taught, they simply ignored it. It is just too common. The appraiser knows what he/she should do, but for whatever reason, fails to do so.

So, David, perhaps you will understand that my own reputation in the state of IL is something with which I am not only comfortable, but proud. I've done plenty for the IL appraisal community and for many many appraisers. And all of it was uncompensated. To this day, even after being in CA for nearly two years, I still get about one call per month asking my advice. It is always freely given, with the caveat that it might be worth what was paid for it.

I have a record on this and will glady rest upon it.

Brad Ellis, IFA,RAA

 

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

Hi guys:

Gee, I am so flattered I am being discussed. Bob and Tom, way to go. I am proud to say I know both of you. David, Austin thank you for your words. Brad, we agree on one thing, the Federal Government should step into the regulatory system as now stands. You should join F.A.I.R. we could use someone with your talents to help accomplish this. Actually, my case started out as Standard 2.5 (no longer in existence). However, it turned into a constitutional issue of due process. Go back and read it again and look at the appeal.

You state "USPAP required him to consider ALL the relevant data and there was simply no way for him to know whether or not the missing data was relevant or not since he did not look at it."

I would say there was no way for the State to stand on the issue of relevance since they brought no data to the hearing. So how would anyone know its relevance? The State needs to prove guilt. The mere existence of transactions shows nothing. In fact I would contend since these properties were odd ball, such as a house with an attached chapel, a home with an attached commercial work shop, etc., relevance is a red herring. Furthermore, you use the word "all" capitalized. Could you please tell me what line within USPAP you are taking this from and its entire context?

What I find important, is not my case. I have said this to you before. The important issue is lack of due process, the incredible misuse of the word misleading (outside, purpose, scope, intended use, etc) and the total void of equity. These issues should be important to all of us in legal proceedings. Finally, I find it ironic some State's want to bludgeon appraisers for not compiling with USPAP when they themselves refuse to comply.

Brad, David brought up something where he implied I may have embarrassed you. If, I have done so, I am sincerely sorry. I am not here to embarrass anyone. I have strong feelings on this issue and I am a human being that sometimes gets emotionally involved. But so are you and it was not right for me to down play you or your accomplishments. With that said, I need to figure out how to open this new section of F.A.I.R.

Steve Vertin

 

[David C. Johnson]

<span style='color:darkblue'>Brad,

You write:

"Yes, I have, and I believe quite correctly, questioned
Steve Vertin's actions."

I agree that you have questioned Steve's actions. You say you have done so "quite correctly." No, Sir, not at all, but I'm listening...

"He said he signed the reports; therefore, he takes
responsibility for both the development of the opinions
of value and for the contents of the reports- each one
of them. And he knew that was the case."

OK, So far so good. Everyone -- certainly including Steve -- understands that concept. That's old STD-2.5 which has been rescinded from USPAP for real good reason, but it makes no difference in his case, so we'll pretend it's valid anyway. Go a head...

"From my recollection of his posts, he said an investigator
turned up 100+ more comps than did the "trusted" appraiser
he used- even after the "trusted" appraiser told him that
there were absolutely no others available. He also said,
as I recall, that none of the extra comps were as good or
better than the ones used."

Right. So what's the point? By the way, why have you put "trusted" in quotation marks, Brad?

"Therefore, I have NOT jumped to the conclusion that there
was a single thing wrong with ANY of those reports."

Brad, "Therefore" preceding a sentence, as you have done, implies that preceding text or argument lends support for, or is the basis for, the conclusion which is presumably found in the remainder of the sentence. Yours is neither. Do you not understand this? You're not necessarily confused. You just have a need to be confusing in your post. But we may be getting somewhere just the same:

"I have not read them and cannot know. YOU have not read
them and cannot know."

Yep, that's part of my point about your comments. Its unfair to Steve, and if we did not know better, could have been damaging to his professional reputation which is particularly unfair in that he is accomplishing such an important service for the profession. Of course, the OBRE has sure had some real nasty things to say too. But they have no credibility at all for numerous reasons. For one, Judge Sullivan (a real judge) indicates they are a perpetually lawless board.

"What we BOTH know, however, is that Steve ought to
have checked the data himself."

Hmmmm...

Well, No, Sir. You are wrong. If he had been training a trainee, you would be correct. However, that is not the case, so you are wrong. She was an experienced (eight years) appraiser with a good reputation not only with Steve from his past experience with her, but also per two past presidents of the Appraisal Institute for whom she had also worked.

But for arguments sake, let's pretend you are right: This means that you are guilty for each and every appraisal you have ever signed as a supervising appraiser where you did not replicate all the research for the assignment yourself. Do you understand? Now, even though you would be guilty, you may not personally be too worried about ever being called to task by the OBRE for any transgression.

"His not doing so causes a potential problem for him."

Well, that maybe a bit of an understatement -- but with a little more reflection, I suspect he may have been due for problems with this particular board regardless.

"USPAP required him to consider ALL the relevant data..."

No, Sir. Your are quite wrong. You are wrong for the reason that has already been discussed, but you are also wrong for several other reasons as well. Hang tough and I'll show you. If you are hoping your qualifier "relevant" in your statement will save the day for you, wrong again.

While others on this forum could no doubt do a better job with it, I am going to see if I can help you out a bit. We'll partly use this specific study (i.e., Steve's case) to illustrate some pertinent principles of appraisal practice for you. At this point, I recommend we carefully read his account found on the following URL. We are going to assume, for argument's sake, that everything that Steve says is true. While we have all found Steve to be very credible (and unusually temperate as so well exemplified by his preceding post), and do not doubt that he speaks the truth, please understand that for this exercise, his veracity is completely irrelevant because we are going to make the Special Assumption, just for this analysis, that the facts, as presented, are true. OK?

This URL will take you right to the top of his post (and your browser's back button should bring you right back):

www.appraisersforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1196&postdays=0&postorder=ASC&start=75

Do you now see that Karen got the best data for her comparables? This was verified to be the case. Steve drew that conclusion in preparing for the OBRE assault against him by reviewing every single sale that had transpired -- comparable or not. And it appears that Bob Gorman (sp?) MAI, who's veracity you have affirmed in that same thread, did the same. Yes, the OBRE lied that the best data was not used. How do we know they lied? Well, it was either a lie, or them being crooks for making all the unsubstantiated Formal Hearing Charges against him that he had to prepare for. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here. Of course, the plain talking truth is they're both liars and crooks, as well inept. They made 237 unsubstantiated charges by their own admission. Isn't that right, Brad? But don't be too impressed with their new found honesty there. You see, it was not until show time for the Hearing that they were forced to either put up or shut up. And, while they had Formally Charged Steve with not using the best comparables available, they did not present any better ones at the Hearing even after eight years to find them. Isn't that right?

Steve writes the following in his account you just read:

"...the State's case was [the charge of the] use of inappropriate comparables. Through it all the State did not bring in one sale. They claimed inappropriate sales but never showed better data. In fact they did not show any data."

I like this too:

"The hearing comes. The State's witness never views the area or properties..."

Man, these guys are just plain top notch -- absolute crack investigators and adjudicators. By the way, that reminds me, are these guys drug tested regularly? -- now that could just explain a few things...

Aside:

An unethical opponent in a lawsuit (that's what these hearings are) absolutely has it made if they can lie with impunity all they want and never get called on it. That's your OBRE. It is "a right" they do not wish to lose. They need this right particularly when convicting the non-guilty. But, you see, it's also unlawful by Illinois State law, therefore your board is run and operated by crooks. Do you not understand this, Brad? They have no exemption from STD-3 which is part and parcel of USPAP which is adopted as state law in Illinois. As your board members' charge (i.e., their obligation), by law, is specifically to enforce this appraisal law, they move beyond the category of mere crooks, Brad, they are truly criminals. But they appear to be criminals for other reasons too, as you may come to understand in the future.

Back to it:

Do we agree that data that is not as good (e.g., not as comparable) is not as relevant? In fact, at that point it is largely irrelevant data. Now please don't say: "and there was simply no way for him to know whether or not the missing data was relevant or not since he did not look at it." We have already been through that, right?

Are similar recent sales of similar properties in nearby similar subdivisions relevant to the appraisal of a property? Yes, Sir, they sure are. I bet you have used such sales in reports in the past. How about recent sales in similar markets in similar towns -- is that relevant data? You bet. When you have appraised in a subdivision with plenty of recent similar sales of similar properties, have you always also gone out of town to find and consider that relevant data? Are you tempted to admit that you have historically not considered ALL the relevant data in your appraisal work, Brad? In your case, go ahead and admit it. While you may not agree that its neither a violation of USPAP or common sense, for your own peace of mind, I think you are probably safe regardless of how many of your board members get to this forum.

Are you getting the picture here, Brad? Let's move on.

You write:

"Heck, I can even turn in my barber if I do not like the
haircut he gives me. Fair? Probably not- unless he
scraped off part of my scalp- but he is licensed, so
it is part of the deal."

and also,

"Your story about the lawyer turned dope addict is a very
good case. A trusted person who went off the deep end- can
happen in any family and to anyone. But, you failed to take
it to its conclusion. IF that lawyer had blown a case due to
his addiction, it would have been incumbent upon the LAW
FIRM to advise the judge AND the client would have received
a new trial. In addition, the law firm would be held responsible
for the actions of its attorney [Sadly, Brad, it don't quite work
like that, but good thought anyway]. That is no different from
Steve being held accountable for the actions of his sub-
contractor."

You write that I "failed to take it to its conclusion." No, Brad. You are alleging a conclusion that is just not there. Presented by way of analogy, you are talking about the consequences of bad work now. How incredibly inappropriate. There were no bad consequences. The state sure alleged none. In fact, there was no bad work and that is why there were no bad consequences. Maybe some homeowners were not happy, I don't know; but, that is not to be considered bad consequences in the appraisal sense (well, except in North Carolina).

"It may well be that the sub did her job adequately. If so,
the court should find for Steve. If not, then he will have to
deal with that."

Goodness. Let's take this apart for you, Brad. "If so, the court should find for Steve." Well, no. Not according to you. Remember?

"As to your other short quotes, supposedly attributable to
me (and I think the first was, but not the other, but it is really
inconsequential), they were certainly taken out of context."

Yes, I did unintentionally misquote you on the second quote. They are both included below with plenty of context.

"...It is due to this that I have maintained that, in most cases,
the IL board has been very fair."

Brad, you are simply not in a position to make such a statement, and certainly not without damaging your credibility. I suspect the Illinois board, like the NCAB, is fair when it cares to be which may even be a good bit of the time, otherwise it is not. With members like this Bronson on board, the OBRE can never be considered to be a fair board. It appears that he did not see fit to correct his inappropriate statement (i.e., unlawful statement actually, Brad) himself after weeks in which to do so. In another post, you say you consider him to be a friend. Fine. I have friends that should never serve on a board either.

"You now accuse me of being unfair. Ha! I've been called worse things."

Somehow I can believe that. Brad, you ARE being unfair. But then, maybe I am being unfair to you right now. Regardless, no one's giving you exclusive claim to unfair. We can all be unfair -- its human nature. State boards need to be extremely vigilant to guard against this aspect of human nature -- to deny a portion of USPAP specifically designed to prevent unfairness is unconscionable. Some board members and some of their staff intend to be unfair when they choose to be. They want to remain as powerful kings, not to be fair adjudicators. They like power. Specifically they like the power to abuse power when they please.

And no, STD-3 is not enough to cure such errant boards. Bad board members (who are invariably bad appraisers in every sense of the word) gadda go. STD-3 will however allow for cases against bad appraisers to be upheld in the courts in the future, and it will be an impediment to the convicting of the innocent, and also for the overconvicting the semi-guilty.

"So, David, perhaps you will understand that my own reputation
in the state of IL is something with which I am not only comfortable,
but proud. I've done plenty for the IL appraisal community and for
many many appraisers. And all of it was uncompensated. To this
day, even after being in CA for nearly two years, I still get about one
call per month asking my advice. It is always freely given, with the
caveat that it might be worth what was paid for it."

My guess is that you are a good appraiser and that you have mainly contributed to the profession over all, and I am looking forward to your verdict on STD-3. Don't hold your breath for call backs from your OBRE sources, and certainly don't expect reasonable answers. Yes, boards do have reasons for resisting STD-3. And yes, burglars have reasons to rob banks. Just keep in mind there can be a significant difference between reasons and good reasons.

Regards,

David C. Johnson
______________________
______________________

References & Stuff

These are a couple of my favorite paragraphs from Steve's cited testimonial:

"Judge Sullivan throws out the testimony of the State's expert because he does not comply with STD3. The witness had no ethical obligation to support any of his testimony. Why? Because he does not have to comply with 3. After the removal of the State's expert witness, there are no witnesses for the prosecution."

"During this hearing it comes up AI dropped this same cases. The prosecution becomes furious that the AI information has come to the surfaces and starts objecting wildly. The judge denies his objections pointing out their side brought the issue up. Andy Bronson, MAI and Board Member then claims (out of the blue) the reason AI dropped the case is because AI dropped prosecution of all cases against all appraisers. He states they were no longer in the enforcement business. It floored everyone. Later on AI's attorney wrote a letter to the judge stating this information was totally false. Now you know how our Board handles damage control."

Bronson, are you reading this, boy? I have a hunch that any bank that would use you for appraisal services should be looked at real carefully. Son, give some serious thought to staying the hell off state boards.

____________

Quote #1 with My Bolding

(Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:22 am)

Note: While arrowing down to find your post, re-read Tom Hildebrandt's post for why unethical boards resist STD-3. He is exactly right. We reviewed many written and oral positions -- for and against adherence -- at a public hearing he forced on the NCAB regarding their non-STD-3 policies. I believe we have about heard them all by now. His summary is excellent.

http://appraisersforum.com/forums/viewtopi...t=live&start=30

Steven,

I just read your post again- this time on the second section, and I take great personal offense to it.

You were not involved in it and clearly know nothing about it. Had you read my posts more carefully, you would have noted that I- PERSONALLY- took Larry Bullock to task over the lack of experience for 154 appraisers. The fact that I was unsuccessful does NOT mean I supported his position. I did not. I supported the APPRAISERS in IL and EVERY ICAP Board member will tell you that.

Now before I get PO'd even more, I'll just leave this thread. Go for what you want and live with the consequences if there are any.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

_________________

Here's the post you were responding to (Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:22 am):

Brad:

I need to say your reply, while political correct, was clear as mud. You have indicated a change in this bill would make OBRE non-compliant at least twice, if not more. You say you would like to deal in facts but you never answer the question. Clearly tell me what portion of this bill, if not passed, will make Illinois non-compliant? Please stop avoiding answering this.

As to your response to Tom, I find it remarkable the past President of ICAP let Larry Bullock mumble some crap, you can not remember, about why OBRE will not or can not comply with the law and you simply let it slide. I do not think you are being straight with us. Why would you do something like that? Who were you watching out for? Larry Bullock or the appraisal community? For those who do not know what ICAP is, it is suppose to be a liaison between the appraisal community and government.

Steve Vertin

______________

Mis-Quote #2 with My Bolding

(arrow down to the very last post on the page to read the full post)

http://appraisersforum.com/forums/viewtopi...t=payback#11590

Wayne, Brad and Ruth,

1. There IS an umbrella organization being formed. It will succeed only if the organizations begin to understand its necessity. This group is working on it and I fear mostly that one of the larger groups will scuttle the effort.

2. What do we do if they fail? One option is for the groups who have NOT tried to scuttle the umbrella to receive members from those who get angry at the groups who DID (if it happens) scuttle the umbrella. Payback is a real way to make you feelings known.</span>

 

[bradellis]

Stevin,

So the case is really about due process, eh? Well, that certainly clears some things up. I re-read your post. If I now understand it correctly, they are trying to say your values were wrong on 13 of the appraisals but did not offer any better data (or none at all). They will have a hard time proving a value is not credible if all they can do is claim that the comps they know about are better than yours. From your info that does not appear to be provable. So good luck, again.

Both you and your friend Mr. Johnson claim that it was not necessary for you to consider ALL the market data out there. I would respectfully disagree. This would certainly be true if you were doing these in, say, Oak Park, where there would be hundreds of comps matching a well defined set of data parameters to choose from. But, these were, per your statements, in a rural area. Apparently, it did not take you too long to uncover these extra bits of market data (not saying they were any better or even as good).

I'll say again that, in my opinion, when you hire a sub and sign off on the reports, you should know if the data is correct and appropriate (to whatever extent is it "knowable"). At least that is MY interpretation of what are recognized procedures and techniques. You take responsibility to the same extent as your sub. I guess my problem with this is that you admit that your SUBSEQUENT investigation turned up all this other market data. I contend that your fiduciary responsibilties would have included such investigations before reaching your conclusions, not after. To me, it does not matter at all, in terms of procedure, if the ones chosen were in fact the best ones. What that means to me is that is that you were fortunate in terms of skill (in selecting a sub who knew enough to choose them) and luck in not finding any better ones.

That aside, this question appears not to be a part of your case, and I find that interesting all by itself.

Please understand that I am not trying to make a federal case out of these extra sales. Nor am I questioning your integrity. There is not one of us, Mr. Johnson included, who has not made some minor errors over their careers. And you are quite right that so many of these things are open to interpretation- just like the need to have considered ALL the data. It is what I believe and it is how I have conducted my own business over the years. But, I would have to admit that I'd have a hard time proving my point in court since it is a personal interpretation of what are or are not proper techniques. Your opinion differs from mine, but that does not make it less credible. I respect your right to disagree with me.

As to FAIR, I'll decline for now. I already have enough involvements and spend a lot of time on them. David Johnson claims I will not get a return call from the folks at OBRE that I contacted over STD-3. Wrong. I'll get the call- just do not know when. One of the 2 investigators has already called (without good enough reasons to eviscerate STD-3, in my opinion). One more investigator and Mr. Brown remains. Mike Brown is obviously out of town (assuming AARO attendance and perhaps the TAF meetings in AZ- I think the AARO meetings were there, too).

By the way, those new admin rules are now apparently in revision 7 with revision 8 to come shortly, and I am also told progess is being made, but do not have the particulars. And, Tom Hildebrandt is correct- they apparently must receive legislative approval- so I stand corrected on this. However, I am also told that this is a slam dunk- if an agency proposes rules they virtually always pass, or so I am told by my source.

Anyway, good luck with both your case and the FAIR project. I'll be sticking to my position- it has been the same for many years now, even when I was a lone voice in the wilderness- that all this should be done on the federal level. I am pushing this on the federal level and am hoping that the GAO investigation will open the door to this concept. Even apart from your and Tom's cases, there is a ton of anecdotal evidence out there showing inappropriate and egregious actions by state boards, mostly due to their lack of understanding of USPAP. If FAIR agrees that federal licensing is the better way to go, then I'd welcome your alliance in trying to get this done.

Later,

Brad Ellis, IFA,RAA

 

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

Brad:

I need to correct you, the State never said values were incorrect. Value was never an issue. Yes, I am of the opinion, any appraiser worth his or her salt can pretty much come close to value with a decent sample size of the market. Especially one's with multiple years experience who have extensive education and training. It is a statistical fact samples yield similar results as the universe of data. Heaping on more sales at some point yields nothing more nothing less. I am of the opinion, the data had reached this point within this assignment. Appraising a single family home is not rocket science. In fact, it is appraisal in its most basic form. You adjust sales to the subject. If your adjustments are market supported, and value is a constant, comparable selection is subjective and immaterial. All you are doing is adding and subtracting, market supported adjustments to a value conclusion.

Finally, if we are held to a standard of considering "ALL" the data (which you still have not given the line number in USPAP) the standard is unobtainable. There are always sales appraisers are unaware of, i.e., sales between buyers and sellers without use of broker, estate sales by courts, land for deed contracts, etc. I believe you are quoting STD 1-4 line 637-639, if so please read it again. It clearly indicates within the scope of work as identified in STD 1-2 (f). It is my opinion, conclusions developed in the assignment were credible in the context of the intended use of the appraisal. Mr. Gorman also had the same opinion. The State of Illinois had no opinion on the issue since their expert witness was disregarded.

As Tom has pointed out, what is happening is appraisers on Boards are using their particular idiocy and incorporating them into USPAP without reading what it actually says. With this aside, I really think the bigger issue is the system at hand. I have welcomed any and all who want to read my transcript. I am getting a electronic copy and may even post in the F.A.I.R user group. Everything, I have said is true and available to the public. The State also keeps open public records. If you have more interest in the case I will send you copies of the transcripts and any and all exhibits.

All of this aside, my case is no longer about these issues. The issue is the State of Illinois fined me $10,000 and presented no witnesses or evidence. The fact is with these tactics the process is open to any and all appraisers winning appeals. This is truly a scary thought. We are in total agreement the system needs changing. I will be glad to work with you on any issue which furthers F.A.I.R.'s founding principles.

Steve Vertin

 

[bradellis]

Steve,

1. I see where you are going with this. Your case is contending that because the state did not provide evidence or witnesses to substantiate their claims, that any resulting fine or sanction is inappropriate.

If I got this right, then we have finally come to an agreement. They should NOT have sanctioned you without being able to provide adequate evidence that you actually did something wrong.

2. As to the "line" in USPAP, it is not a separate line. I contend that it is contaiined in the wording "recognized methods and techniques". I do not know what you were taught, but I was taught that we must do "whatever it takes" to gather relevant market data. Yes, I DID say "relevant". My point is that if data was not considered, how could one know if it is or is not relevant? And by "ALL", I obviously mean data that is "reasonably" available. Sorry if that was not clear. And further, I have already stated that this would depend upon the market area and its characteristics.

Now that you tell me that this is not over value, it is moot and we can continue to disagree on this point understanding each other's views.

I'll be really interested in the outcome.

Brad Ellis, IFA,RAA

 

[Austin]

Bradellis: I am not trying to be a contraryian so don't take this personally, most appraisers probably hold your position, but two things you said in your above post struck a cord in my mind.
First your statement: You said: “"recognized methods and techniques". Reply: Recognized by whom? As I understand it, the biggest problems the appraisal business has faced keeping us from being recognized as a true profession is that there is no legally sanctioned body of real estate appraisal knowledge. There are a number of professional appraisal organizations and associations that teach their members their particular recognized methods but they are not legally binding or universally recognized. This fact is in my mind the real reason state appraisal boards don’t want to do standard 3 reviews, because if anybody ever takes this to court and points this out it will make a mockery of the whole appraisal profession as we incorrectly call it. I can write you a book on mathematically and logically provable problems with so called accepted methods and techniques. They are not accepted by me. Matched pairs? Sequence of adjustments? I will take my chances with Mrs. Cleo.
Second: You keep harping on using all relevant data. This notion flies in the face of the science of statistics and makes a mockery of the sales comparison approach that requires three comparable sales as it relates to the definition of market value (most probable price statement). To talk about accepted methods and techniques on the one hand, using three comparable sales as required for example to find the most probable price (mathematically impossible), and then talking about using all relevant data as required by USPAP is just plain disingenuousness and or shortsighted.