New Term for Readdressing Appraisals

[Terrel L. Shields]

A first for me. I have always advocated narratives for estates so that the client won't be so tempted to take the report to a bank and try to use it for mortgage purposes.

Got a letter asking me to "switch over" the appraisal to a local banker....

Gee, the appraisal is 10 months old and written for an estate lawyer...no problem, do that in 3 minutes right? 50 page narrative of a complex property. crap.

 

[Fred]

New Term for Readdressing Appraisals

I think it needs a new name. I don't know how to put an address on an appraisal in the first place, so I surely wouldn't know how to "re" address one.

PS: I probably wouldn't use FRT-MV for an estate appraisal, so I'd probably have to re-defnition it too. Oh well, probably ought to start over.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I've had that happen also. I was hired as the neutral appraiser (court-ordered). The husband takes it to the bank, and the banker wants it readdressed, for some ridiculously low fee (telephone number value on property). I told the banker that by being on the phone with me he risks receiving a supeona (you'd be surprised who they'll drag into court when things get ugly), and that he'd have to speak to the judge before I can discuss or do anything with property in question.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Oh well, probably ought to start over.

pretty much what i told 'em.

 

[Lee Lansford]

When I receive the infrequent telephone call (usually from a MB) for a "re-assignment" (or, whatever the term of the day might be), I no longer attempt to provide them with the niceties of the USPAP by way of explanation as to why I can not do what they request. Instead, I carefully (in writing) explain to them exactly how I can assist them with a new appraisal. The process is still a bit like pulling teeth, but I do make certain that I let them know that "yes, I can assist you" and "this is how I can assist you".

 

[Joker]

Ditto Mr. Lansford

 

[Colleague]

Per USPAP 2006 advisory Opinion - A new Assignment of a Prior Assignment - states that:

"Regardless of the nomenclature (name) used, when a client seeks a more current value or analysis of a property that was the subject of a prior assignment, this is not an extension of that prior assignment that was already completed - it is simply a new assignment".

 

[Fred]

Lee,
That's what I used to post when the ASB first opened this can of worms - just tell them how long it will take and how much money you want. Any appraiser who argues USPAP with a MB, needs a sanity check.

Bert,
The AO you are citing addresses when the second request comes from the same client. In Terry's story, the second client will be different than the first.

 

[Nicholas Durante]

Per USPAP 2006 advisory Opinion - A new Assignment of a Prior Assignment - states that:

"Regardless of the nomenclature (name) used, when a client seeks a more current value or analysis of a property that was the subject of a prior assignment, this is not an extension of that prior assignment that was already completed - it is simply a new assignment".

One thing you can always do is to state you are not able to confirm or deny the existence of an appraisal that was not ordered by the person on the phone asking for "readdressing". Unless they are named as an intended user on the report, you cannot even discuss the alleged report with them without first contacting the original mortgage company. Hold please while I get them on the line. This tact I take only with those who attempt to assert themselves as being in charge of my life, and expect me to jump when they say jump.

The vast majority of "questioners" I speak with are content with the fact that they have really two choices - Order a new appraisal from ME at MY reduced fee, OR order a fresh appraisal from a DIFFERENT company at FULL PRICE. Their choice. Call me back when you have a decision, or just fax me the order at zzz-zzz-xxxx.

Nicholas

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

In Terry's story, the second client will be different than the first.

The client is different. The purpose is different. There is a borrower in the mix on #2....so the users (heirs vs borrowers) is different..No problem. just do it cheap...