• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

New Assignment / Retro Effective Date

Status
Not open for further replies.

sarasox

Thread Starter
Freshman Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Florida
New MB client calls to have re-fi appraisal on property I had previously inspected and reported upon for different client 6 weeks ago. He says he wants the previous effective date, but will not so state in writing. Am I correct in requiring this?
Thanks.
 

leelansford

Elite Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Illinois
New MB client calls to have re-fi appraisal on property I had previously inspected and reported upon for different client 6 weeks ago. He says he wants the previous effective date, but will not so state in writing. Am I correct in requiring this?
Thanks.

I would require, in writing, the client requesting the effective date of 6 weeks prior to the request for the appraisal.

Further, in my report of the appraisal, I would report this assignment condition. You do NOT want someone coming back to you in a few weeks--or months--and asking you why the effective date comes before the date of the request.

Make life easier: Accept the assignment with the condition that you will re-inspect and, thus, provide an effective date that comes after the date of the request. The fee? That's between you and your client.

And by the way: if the MB is devious regarding this matter, the MB is someone with whom I would not want to associate myself.
 

sarasox

Thread Starter
Freshman Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Florida
Thanks for the quick reply... I asked client "without your effective date stipulation, why would I possibly, and arbitrarily, choose to use an effective date in June when your Request for Appraisal is dated 10 July?".
This one's a no-go, but wanted to confirm my thoughts, so thanks again.
 

Webbed Feet

Elite Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Canada
Ms. Sox,

You mean you didn't read between the lines in order to understand the MBer was really saying the same value was required? ... ;)

I'd still like to go back in time in order to find the very first USPAP instructor that got up and started this "use the prior effective date and the report will just mysteriously look the same" crap. Then tar and feather the jerk.

Webbed.
 

Mztk1

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Florida
Its Florida, values have been declining. He is afraid the value has dropped. You can tell you can do a retrospective appraisal to the earlier date but that that will be plastered on every page of the report. He needs to ask for this type of report in the engagement letter. Or, you can tell him that the values in many Florida markets have stabilized in 2008 and though he'd be taking his chances it is not a wild shot in the dark chance.
 

Webbed Feet

Elite Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Canada
Mr. Klos,

I agree with you. But you know, I know, nuts.... everyone knows, that this entire "use a prior effective date" nonsense was thought up as an end run to the prohibition against client name changes with cloned appraisal reports. Now this abortion of an idea is being abused for additional reasons that should not be allowed.

More than this, the group of jerks that came up with this notion failed to train any of the appraisers they were mouthing this off to about correct Retrospective analysis and not being misleading about it. Or even properly advising a client about the drawbacks of asking for a Retrospective analysis to be used for an intended use of a current loan. It would in fact be my stand that performing a Retrospective analysis for a current mortgage loan, in a crashing real estate market, and failing to detail the CURRENT market, as well as the market present at the time of the effective date, would result in a misleading appraisal due to the intended use. So the onus would be on the appraiser to make sure any intended users fully understood how much more the market had declined since that prior effective date. This pretty much blows such a MBer out of the water for what they are trying to attempt.

One of these days I will get my hands on such a "Retrospective" cloning job that fails completely in the above mission. I will prove my point with a prompt and detailed board complaint too.

Webbed.
 

ZZGAMAZZ

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
California
Maybe I'm missing the point of this thread entirely. However...I recently attended a SoCal seminar on "Prospective and Retrospective Appraisals" taught by the owner of a well respected training organization, who was recommended to me via the Forum.

He spent a good length of time explaining why a new order from a new client with the effective date of a previous appraisal was not a retrospective appraisal, and why CA OREA agreed with this point based upon a recent meeting between the two entities.

I was the only person in a group of 100 appraisers who questioned the logic, and I still don't understand????
 

RSW

Elite Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Tennessee
How can an appraisal dated before the letter of engagement not be a retrospective appraisal?
 

Webbed Feet

Elite Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Canada
ZZGA,

I would say that in that case 15 of the 100 agreed with this person, 20 wanted to agree just because such B.S. makes it convenient for them to do name changes via cloning old reports and claiming it was a new assignment, 32 were a bunch of gutless wonders just wanting to get the CE overwith as fast as they could but did not agree with it, 32 were gutless wonders wanting to get the CE overwith and are permanently clueless about most everything anyway, and one of the group had a brain and the gumption to question what was being said.... ;)

Now given the one (1) that listened intently with a very active mind that stuck with the topic, didn't go to sleep in the back of the room, and tried to understand the supposedly correct concept ended up posting today still not able to understand.... I would say that very respected training oganization owner did one p.i.s.s. poor job of presenting his case. And if the entire CA OREA board agreed with his point I would ask for that in writing out of the CA OREA before I would believe it.

Webbed.

P.S. However, given this IS California, the hottest bed of the MBer comp search requesting and other USPAP violating requests in all of the U.S., I would want to do any research I could to see if this training organization owner was paid off by some biased organization to come up with a distorted view and broadcast it to appraisers. It wouldn't be the first time a company paid to have "research" turn out the way the company needed it to turn out. By the way, let me know the company by private message or email and the class. I can't wait for them to bring that CE class to Oregon.

Page two, paragraphs nine and ten. I think my board was serious about the publication. I doubt anything has changed as nothing in USPAP has changed regarding this.

http://oregonaclb.org/media/news7-03.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Top

AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks