Tom Hildebrandt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Professional Status
- General Public
- State
- North Carolina
In several past postings, there have been references to my forthcoming hearing before the North Carolina Appraisal Board.The day is now at hand, this morning my hearing starts.
I have been maintaining for almost three years (yep, I know that boards are supposed to get to final action completed in under one year by ASC guidelines but the NCAB seldom pays attention to federal guidelines) that this case should be dismissed as a matter of professional disagreement, but they have refused to let sleeping dogs lie.
For those who want a brief glimpse at what this case is about search for the Greenboro News and Record then read the article titled "Land Appraisal leads to complaints." The rest of this post assumes that you have read the article. If I knew how to link these things I would but I have enough worries today ..
There are a few inconsistencies in the story but the writer pretty much has the core issues pegged. The several appraisers for the airport authority, all MAI's, all ignored the property history, they never considered condemnation blight because they incorrectly identified the project, and all came in within a couple of thousand dollars per acre of each other. The first group had completed their work several months prior, but the complaintant in my case turned in his appraisal report two days after a meeting with the other airport appraisers and the attorneys. He claims that they did not discuss value conclusions or value issues at this meeting, but that he just recieved revisions to the wetlands areas and legal standards which included including taking out all references to Fed Ex. I do not find it surprising that his value relative to the prior appraisal was tight as a drum, but I am sure I am too close to this issue to see things with clarity.
The fact is that sewer was not extended to this property because of the airports proposed expansion plans. Also relocation of an interchange adjacent to the property and numerous other actions clearly damaged this property yet the property continued to have market activity in the range of $60,000 $70,000 in spite of the blight.
Crazy as it sounds, the MAI who turned me in to the board, who makes no mention of the property history in his report and totally accepts the airports position on the definition of the project and who admits he provided appraisal review services for his client without compliance with standard three, is going to be one of the three star witnesses for the state. By the way, his explanation for not complying with standard three when reviewing my work, is on the order of I believe I am allowed to provide professional services to my client. Incredible.
The good news in this that the NCAB new deputy director is going to testify as having done a Standard Three review. The bad news is that his report, finished only one week ago so no chance for depositions although he was assigned the project in October, is three pages, and is so sparse as to be laughable. Incredibly, one of the charges is that insufficient information was in my report. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
He also says in his report that he has only read my report and he never looked my workfile. What he did not say is that he never discussed the issues with me, never read depositions or court testimony and never talked to my client, the attorney or the property owner. Presumably, he has not investigated the property history either. He did talk to airport and to the complaintant. His conclusion after this substantive investigation is that my work is not credible. Amazing. Anybody see any issues concerning impartiality or bias?
The other MAI who is going to testify says in his report he did a Standard Three review, and that since the project was Fed Ex, my highest and best use must be wrong and therefore my work is not acceptable. He then concludes that he has not done an appraisal but that Hildebrandt clearly overvalued the property. Anybody see a possible standards violation in that statement?
As soon as the hearing is over, probably Friday, I will post what I can, probable cause summary, notice of hearing, etc.
If you can make it to the High Point, North Carolina courthouse complex during the next two days, pop in for part of the hearing, this should be great fun!
Regards
Tom Hildebrandt GAA
I have been maintaining for almost three years (yep, I know that boards are supposed to get to final action completed in under one year by ASC guidelines but the NCAB seldom pays attention to federal guidelines) that this case should be dismissed as a matter of professional disagreement, but they have refused to let sleeping dogs lie.
For those who want a brief glimpse at what this case is about search for the Greenboro News and Record then read the article titled "Land Appraisal leads to complaints." The rest of this post assumes that you have read the article. If I knew how to link these things I would but I have enough worries today ..
There are a few inconsistencies in the story but the writer pretty much has the core issues pegged. The several appraisers for the airport authority, all MAI's, all ignored the property history, they never considered condemnation blight because they incorrectly identified the project, and all came in within a couple of thousand dollars per acre of each other. The first group had completed their work several months prior, but the complaintant in my case turned in his appraisal report two days after a meeting with the other airport appraisers and the attorneys. He claims that they did not discuss value conclusions or value issues at this meeting, but that he just recieved revisions to the wetlands areas and legal standards which included including taking out all references to Fed Ex. I do not find it surprising that his value relative to the prior appraisal was tight as a drum, but I am sure I am too close to this issue to see things with clarity.
The fact is that sewer was not extended to this property because of the airports proposed expansion plans. Also relocation of an interchange adjacent to the property and numerous other actions clearly damaged this property yet the property continued to have market activity in the range of $60,000 $70,000 in spite of the blight.
Crazy as it sounds, the MAI who turned me in to the board, who makes no mention of the property history in his report and totally accepts the airports position on the definition of the project and who admits he provided appraisal review services for his client without compliance with standard three, is going to be one of the three star witnesses for the state. By the way, his explanation for not complying with standard three when reviewing my work, is on the order of I believe I am allowed to provide professional services to my client. Incredible.
The good news in this that the NCAB new deputy director is going to testify as having done a Standard Three review. The bad news is that his report, finished only one week ago so no chance for depositions although he was assigned the project in October, is three pages, and is so sparse as to be laughable. Incredibly, one of the charges is that insufficient information was in my report. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
He also says in his report that he has only read my report and he never looked my workfile. What he did not say is that he never discussed the issues with me, never read depositions or court testimony and never talked to my client, the attorney or the property owner. Presumably, he has not investigated the property history either. He did talk to airport and to the complaintant. His conclusion after this substantive investigation is that my work is not credible. Amazing. Anybody see any issues concerning impartiality or bias?
The other MAI who is going to testify says in his report he did a Standard Three review, and that since the project was Fed Ex, my highest and best use must be wrong and therefore my work is not acceptable. He then concludes that he has not done an appraisal but that Hildebrandt clearly overvalued the property. Anybody see a possible standards violation in that statement?
As soon as the hearing is over, probably Friday, I will post what I can, probable cause summary, notice of hearing, etc.
If you can make it to the High Point, North Carolina courthouse complex during the next two days, pop in for part of the hearing, this should be great fun!
Regards
Tom Hildebrandt GAA
