NCAB-Are These Guys Serious????

[Ben Vukicevich SRA]

Shannon had posted a link to the NCAB over in the main forum under the Client thread and I took the opportunity to cruise over and read some stuff.

These guys can't be serious, can they?

"For example, if a secretary types up a report which contains erroneous information, such as incorrect sales dates or prices for comps, and the appraiser signs the report, it is the appraiser who takes responsibility for issuing a misleading report; the appraiser cannot rely on the defense that the secretary made a typographical error which the appraiser did not notice."

I type my own reports and still screw-up. Rarely mind you as I'm a licensed professional (yeah, right.) I guess I'd be long gone if I was in NC. No one is that perfect. A simple typo=a misleading appraisal report? I can see that idea being carried to the extreme for the benefit of the few. What if it had no effect on the final value of the subject and was just a plain and simple typo? Do they allow any leeway for that scenario? Or is it off to USPAP hell? Please, even Sr. Mary Elephant let me correct my typos in grammar school with a less severe punishment than that-misleading.

Oh God, I work in NC and it's 1/1/2002 and I just typed 1/1/2001 because my brain's not yet in gear for the new year.

What do you guys smoke down there??????

Now NJ, that's the place to be. They're so busy with the "big stuff," they can't even get the licenses out and they expire next week.

You NC boys/gals got to be the best appraisers left in the USA. Be Proud.
Err, actually, what an embarassment to have that BS on a website.

Ben

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Ben

It is absolutely incredible what the NCAB will do.

In a hearing currently going on, one of the state's witness, the person turning in the complaint, is an MAI. He has testified that he recieved a copy of the appraisal report at issue from his client during discovery during a litigated condemnation case (he had done an appraiaal for that case) and that his client asked him to review the report in preparation for trial. The MAI admitted that he told the client that he thought the report was flawed ( wrong use definition and that the value was improper). He also said he did not do a Standard Three review. This witness then went on in the hearing to point out all the things that he felt were wrong with this report.

The five members of the board hearing the case did not blink an eye. Apparently it is ok for a state witness to gaff off USPAP but the "other appraisers" can be held responsible for typo.

Another MAI testified that he did a Standard three review but did not come to a value conclusion. He then stated that he was of the opinion that the appraiser had overvalued the property. One of the board members apparently woke up at this point and suggested that that was an opinion of value, and asked what work he had done to support this opinion. He said none, that it was just an opinion. The board member then muttered something about disagreeing with USPAP on this issue and asked no further questions.

I will be obtaining the transcripts in this case, and will get the exact quotes out to the world.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

The hearing continued through 3:00 PM today, Friday. The NCAB recessed for deliberation but then reconvened and said they would go on with their regular meeting and finish deliberations some unspecified time in the near future.

First the good news. The new deputy director is apparently not adverse to preparing his testimony in accordance with USPAP Standard Three. This is a welcome change. I will reserve my comments on this change in policy until I see several more examples of the work product as I have significant concerns about the instructions from the staff attorney which would limit the independence of the review appraiser in these assignments.

Interesting comments of which I made note and are paraphrased below.

From the new Deputy Director who has thirty years of experience in doing appraisal reviews for NCDOT and who orally presented a Standard Three review.

- I just found out (in January 2002) that a Standard Three review does not have to provide a value conclusion. (my comment, better now than later but where has he been since USPAP was implemented.)

- an appraiser doing a Freddie/Mac review is not doing a Standard three review (Huh?)

- a report with a hypothetical condition needs to be written so the world would know all the conditions, any one in possession of the report should understand it ( gosh, I thought only the client and the intended users were supposed to understand the report, at least I thought this was a change implemented in the mid 1990"s)

- But I am not an expert on USPAP (duh)

From the staff investigator who is an appraiser who "only reports facts"

- "I only investigate what the staff attorney tells me" (remember, the attorney is not acting in an impartial unbiased manner as appraisers are expected, their job is to work as an advocate, in this case, hang the guilty. This is a little like the lender telling the appaiser to go out and verify that the house has been painted but do not include in your verfication any information about a car that skidded off the road and went through the living room last night. (I think that most of us would recognize such a condition is inapproriate and unacceptable.)

Lots of other intriguing technical comments and expressions of opinions, but the case was far too complex to summarize, and without having the facts and statements put in context of the case, to express them here would only confuse the issue.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

Tom:

I received your e-mail and believe it is important enough to warrant the appropriate response. I have been so busy it has been near impossible to respond. I should be getting a break within the week. Please be patient I have not lost interest in the issue. Thank you for your understanding.


Steve Vertin