NCAB meeting, last Tuesday 01/15/2002

[Bob Ipock]

Sorry for the delay on this, been a long hard week for me.

Drove up to Raleigh on Tuesday with Mike Dodgin and Jerry Ippolito. Very interesting meeting! Two groundbreaking decisions took place.

Tom Hilderbrant filed a motion with the NCAB for them to defer his complaint hearing to an Administrative Law Judge. Tom believes that the board is biased against him and/or that the PERCEPTION of bias (and I personally agree) to a degree that he would not be able to receive a fair hearing. The NCAB attorney and her boss from the NC Attorney General's Office advised the board to send the case to an ALJ. After nearly an hour of deliberation (in the back room), the board members came out and voted to refer the case as they had been advised by counsel. This is a FIRST! Never before has the NCAB agreed to send a case to an ALJ. They made a good decision in my opinion.

The second BIG DEAL was the hearing involving former State Senator Robert Barker. Barker had a complaint filed against him by a client and the clients attorney. The complaint was primarily on VALUE. In this case the NCAB Investigators did a USPAP Standard 3 Review which addressed value. This was the FIRST ever such review done by the NCAB (to the best of my knowledge).

The NCAB found the value to be reasonable but the report was no where near USPAP compliant. The accused had done a "letter appraisal" as an UPDATE on a 7 year old appraisal he had previously done for the client. The appraisal made no mention of USPAP, purpose, limiting conditions, definition of market value or any of the other items REQUIRED by USPAP.

Barker took the stand and admitted that prior to the complaint knew little or nothing about USPAP requirements. AFTER the complaint he took a 15 hour USPAP class and is making efforts to learn what he needs to know. He was given an "unpublished warning" and instructed to take a designated CE class. In addition he had a $3,000.00 attorney bill to cover!

Those of you who are unconcerned about USPAP should have been there...it would have made a believer out of you.

Another Gaston County appraiser had a probable cause hearing and was given a warning (published this time) and another CE class to take. This same appraiser had a probable cause hearing LAST MONTH and got a conditional dismissal if he completes certain CE classes.

There are currently 13 complaints pending concerning Gaston County appraisers.

Next month's meeting will be in Greensboro (only 100 mile folks) so I hope some of you will attend. Ask Mike and Jerry if it was worth the trip to Raleigh!!!!




Regards,


Bob Ipock

 

[David C. Johnson]

Hi Bob,

You write:

"After nearly an hour of deliberation (in the back room), the board
members came out and voted to refer the case as they had been
advised by counsel. This is a FIRST! Never before has the NCAB
agreed to send a case to an ALJ. They made a good decision in
my opinion."

Good observation. However, I would also add that this was the Very First Time this board Has Ever Been Subject to the request/demand of deferring a case to an outside Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Actually, it wasn't much of "a decision" at all -- it just took them an hour to figure that out. They had no real choice -- just as they had little choice about the Forced Recusal of several overeager, spastically-twitching trigger-finger board members from the coming subsequent board review of the ALJ's verdict. Like 99.9% of the Country's appraisers, our board members had No Idea this Respondent Option Even Existed.

NC attorney Vance C. Kinlaw of Greensboro appears to be an emerging long needed force for the preservation of the very integrity of real estate appraising in this state from Renegade Board Attack. We can be thankful for his thorough knowledge of Administrative Law, and more importantly, his willingness to Invoke this Law to help counter and control the corrupt and inept current North Carolina Appraisal Board (NCAB) -- and perhaps against the few other remaining rouge state appraisal boards and/or board members across the Nation? Can appraisers from any state benefit from KinLAW? That's my understanding (while there might need to be a state-licensed attorney from that state on board as part of "the team" -- who should be cheap or free and appreciate the opportunity to learn). More likely, Mr. Kinlaw could be consulted by one's counsel over the phone from the start and prior to motions and other proceedings. More likely still, the establishment of state Case Law and precedent may suffice for all alert, up to date attorneys in other jurisdictions.

In the future, maybe an online pamphlet can be authored to alert and apprise appraisers of their rights, the law, and also what to expect from some states' appraisal boards (and other state boards as well?):

"Appraisers' Rights Under Administrative Law -- the Malfeasant Board's Nightmare."

The current NCAB is not going to be liking this at all (while a very few there certainly may). Too bad. This particular provision of administrative law should be noted by all appraisers in NC and appraisers in other states should take notice. It is a potential solution for unjustly or over-prosecuted licensees under similar circumstances. It may be a Major "Preemptive Remedy" allowed for by the Administrative Law System (i.e., the Tribunal System) that is probably basically the same in most or all other states (to my limited knowledge on the matter).

I cannot help but be reminded of the scene in the movie "Walking Tall" where the newly elected sheriff finally takes and studies the Tennessee State General Statutes Book. If you recall, he did some strategic and appropriate "reallocation of officing arrangements" for some courthouse personnel the following day -- including for the thoroughly corrupt county judge who got to "take his pick" of "offices/stalls." Hence, Restroom Breaks became infinitely more convenient for that "Most Honorable Sole."

_________________

Bob,

You also write:

"The complaint was primarily on VALUE. In this case the NCAB
Investigators did a USPAP Standard 3 Review which addressed
value. This was the FIRST ever such review done by the NCAB
(to the best of my knowledge)."

To the best of my knowledge also. Did you note that for the estimation of appraised value, the NCAB had the investigator present a Value Range rather than the more typical Point Value. Interesting. More thoughts on this another time...

__________________

You also write:

"The appraisal made no mention of USPAP, purpose, limiting
conditions, definition of market value or any of the other items
REQUIRED by USPAP."

For whatever it is worth, the reader (of these posts) should note that a Copy of the Original Appraisal Report (that was updated) was included with the Update to the client. That document may have addressed some or all of the missing reporting elements.

Thanks for your post, Bob.

dcj

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

David, Bob and other readers

Since my case was discussed in this thread, I would thought I would comment.

First, my thanks to Bob Ipock who volunteered (and followed through on his promise) to write a letter (actually a legal affidavit) stating that in his opinion, the NCAB could not fairly and impartially hear my case. I am certain that Bob's decision to take a stand for what he believes to be fair and just did not go unnoticed by the NCAB, and I can only hope that nothing unfortunate comes to Bob from the NCAB as a result of his willingness to take an ethical stance contrary to the NCAB in this matter.

The motion to get an Administrative Law Judge came at a price. I had to stipulate to voluntarily drop my judicial appeal of the NCAB rulings on the Standard Three review issue before the NCAB staff attorney would recommend that the board put the case to an ALJ.

An additional motion was made on my behalf which was also accepted by the board. I requested three board members (Ossie Smith, Jack Horton and Bruce Deschamps) to be dismissed from hearing the case if they refused the motion for an ALJ, and from reviewing and commenting on the case when the ALJ makes his findings. (For those who do not understand the process, The ALJ hears the case, makes a recommendation to the NCAB who can either concur or disagree. So the NCAB makes the final decision. )

The actual petiton for dismissal of the three members was based on public and private comments made by each of the individual members regarding their personal or professional opinions regarding me. To his credit , Jack Horton recused himself (He was the board member who wrote a letter to all state appraisers in rebuttal to my request for for a rule making petition. In this letter he referred to me as being stupid and ignorant. ) Neither Ossie or Bruce were inclined to act ethically by personally recusing themselves even though they were demonstratably biased against me.

For those with enquiring minds, the actual motion discussed the particulars of the comments of each of the individuals and the circumstances under which the comments were made. As this is a matter of public record, I will share it with any individual who wishes, but I am electing not to discuss the comments in this posting. It is sufficient for me to note that the individuals (and the NCAB) to know that they acted inappropriately.

In short, this was not just legal ploy nor an attempt to delay the proceeding as Charlie Bass suggested at the hearing, but raised legitimate concerns about the ability of tha NCAB to adjudicate this matter impartially. As to the matter of delay, the only delays have been by the NCAB. The complaint was filed in early summer 2000. The NCAB did not find probable cause until 12 months later and did not file a notice of hearing until late October, almost 17 months later.

The astute appraiser will know that the ASC recommends for boards to arrive at a final agency decision in disciplinary matters within 12 months, so the NCAB now is feeling the need to proceed quickly. The NCAB is now saying that I am the one delaying the process. My position is that if it has taken the boards staff 15 months to figure out what they think it is that I have done wrong, why would it not take me, with limited asests, several months to figure out what it is that the NCAB has said that I have done wrong.

Reviewing the investigators records and deposing witnesses are part of due process; this fundamental part of due process could not begin until a notice of hearing and formal charges are made. The NCAB cancelled the first date for depositions; the revised schedule is still pending.

I will keep the forum posted on the case as we proceed; I figure if the NCAB wants to retry a case that has already been heard by a jury, it won't hurt to have the case heard by the members of the Appraisersforum.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA