Mreac Investigation Thoughts/help Needed

[DWiley]

BS. It allows the public to punish an appraiser with a mere accusation even when totally without merit. Show me any other regulated profession where this is required. Investigators have run two forumites out of being an appraiser when the investigation had nothing. One the (newbie) Investigator tried to apply AI standards to the one report. So D** stood up,handed him his license and quit on the spot. He went to work for HP as a systems programmer. The other was accused by the same investigator of "lawyering up" because he was going to law school. His sin? He applied a $10/SF adjustment for a basement using pairing with a single sales pair. Basements in Little Rock are rare but the HO complained because the value wasn't high enough. He had to quit since he couldn't have a blemish on his record to sit for the bar exam. Last time I talked to him he worked as intern to one of the largest law firms in LR. And, the forumite in my post above from MO, also quit in disgust and went back to brokerage in Springfield. Running people out of business by frivolous complaint is a huge issue- the elephant in the room.

When were the most complaints filed? In the distressed years of 2008-2011. Were appraisers worse in those years? L no. Thus the complaints are predominately about value and boards arrogantly say they don't address "value" issues, but in reality they do exactly that and 99% of complaints are value driven. Looking for USPAP violations outside the narrow nature of the complaint shouldn't be allowed. The trust of the public is a canard akin to the tooth fairy.

And if the state is allowed to ignore complaints, exactly how does that enhance public trust? Your position is oxymoronic - you don't trust boards, so as a result you want to trust them to decide what complaints to investigate and which ones to ignore.

 

[timd354]

And when the "state" aka the government accuses, constitutional rights kick in. Which includes but not limited to the 6th amendment.

While I believe that anonymous complaints should not be allowed, that has nothing to do with the the 6th Amendment. The 6th amendment is only applicable to criminal prosecutions and the investigation/proceedings of a state appraisal board is not a criminal prosecution but is a civil/administrative enforcement action. Thus, the sixth amendment simply is not applicable to the issue of state appraisal board enforcement actions.

 

[timd354]

In a formal action the accuser is the State, not the complainant

On a more serious note - I understand the angst some have with anonymous complaints. But I think there are also times when anonymous complaints are best. In the past I have sent anonymous complaints because I did not want the fact that I (as a former chief reviewer/investigator for my state board) was the party submitting the complaint to influence how the complaint was considered. The case should rest on the evidence, not the people involved.

Danny, I understand and respect what you are saying but I disagree with your position that anonymous complaints should be allowed. I simply believe that the risk of mischief from anonymous complaints outweighs the potential benefits of allowing anonymous complaints.

 

[Mr Rex]

Thank God the NC board does not accept anonymous complaints. 1st few lines:

NORTH CAROLINA APPRAISAL BOARD COMPLAINT HANDLING PROGRAM
OVERVIEW

Fairness and due process are fundamental concepts in the Complaint Handling Program.

All complaints must be in writing. No verbal complaints will be received or investigated. Anonymous complaints will not be opened. In addition, the Board may, on its own motion, decide to open a complaint. See Board Complaints Policy.

 

[djd09]

Maybe the right way is for the compliants to file in civil court if it is a civil matter. Explain why the state is the prosecutor, the jury, the judge, and the fine collector. rigged

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Your position is oxymoronic

A board should have the option to dismiss a complaint upon the face of the complaint. When a complaint consists of nothing but claiming the appraisal wasn't high enough to make the loan, there should be no hearing. Instead, he had to submit the report for review, hire an attorney, prepare a defense, and go to Jefferson, MO miles from his home only to have them hear the case despite the California broker being a no show, then agreed he did nothing wrong. DUH! If that's oxymoronic I'm guilty. Dan showed me the paperwork and complaint. He was working with me at the time. I was having him help me so he could get commercial hours. He was a CR. There is absolutely no reason for an investigation by the board when the complaint fails to address any substantive issue and except under appraisal rules, you supposedly have the right to face your accuser...But not in states where boards take it upon themselves to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor AND plaintiff all four!

 

[DWiley]

A board should have the option to dismiss a complaint upon the face of the complaint. When a complaint consists of nothing but claiming the appraisal wasn't high enough to make the loan, there !

What you describe is exactly what we did when i worked for the state. An "investigation" might vary in scope, depending on the findings along the way. As I noted before, 40% were dismissed upon initial review, a few more were dismissed after workfile review, a few resulted in counseling with no discipline, etc. Very few went to formal hearing. I worked about 400 complaints and only about 10% resulted in formal hearings.

 

[timd354]

What you describe is exactly what we did when i worked for the state. An "investigation" might vary in scope, depending on the findings along the way. As I noted before, 40% were dismissed upon initial review, a few more were dismissed after workfile review, a few resulted in counseling with no discipline, etc. Very few went to formal hearing. I worked about 400 complaints and only about 10% resulted in formal hearings.

It sounds like your board did a good job in quickly dismissing unfounded complaints and was not looking to play a "gotcha" game with the appraisers it regulates. Unfortunately, I don't have high confidence that the boards in every state do such a good job as I think that there are at least a couple of state boards are more interested in a money grab and negotiating fines and penalties out of appraisers than protecting the public trust. Any fines and penalties assessed by a state board or any administrative agency should go into the state general fund and not be retained by the the state board or administrative agency, but unfortunately the fines/penalties in some states are retained by the boards (which are often otherwise underfunded). Such an arrangement creates a clear conflict of interest.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

What you describe is exactly what we did when i worked for the state.

Arkansas does preliminaries but still asks for the report and review it I understand. MO proceeded with the whole hearing.

 

[reviewbe]

There's a difference between an initial screening, like they do here in California, and an investigation. A lot of complaints are tossed during screening, and in those instances, the appraiser never even knows that a complaint was filed. Even some that get investigated result in no discipline, because while the complaint looked like it had merit in the screening process, the investigation may show otherwise.

With respect to the OP, all I can say is YIKES!!