New USPAP Q & A October 2009

[panappr]

In the Blue corner weighing in at 500 pounds the current Champion--HUD!
In the RED corner weighing in at a svelte 100 pounds (dripping wet)--- USPAP Q&A!
The Judges for the event are ,The State Appraisal Board, THE Mortgage Bankers, AND THE Mortgage Underwriters......................

and again the battle is for the "CONTROL THE APPRAISERS BELT":icon_mrgreen:​

 

[NC Appraising]

New assignment, with a new effective date....Forget about the original appraisal. New client, new assignment.



For Greg:

For Me: :Eyecrazy:

I'm going to do whatever LSI says.

 

[Bama Bayou]

This is getting sillier by the minute.

I heard that.

 

[DWiley]

This is getting sillier by the minute.

Actually, the real silliness in the 3rd Q&A for October. There is a quote from the "yellow book," but the statement provided does not exists in the UASFLA. Even better, there is an alleged Jurisdictional Exception created by a requirement that does not conflict with USPAP.

 

[Carnivore]

Actually, the real silliness in the 3rd Q&A for October. There is a quote from the "yellow book," but the statement provided does not exists in the UASFLA. Even better, there is an alleged Jurisdictional Exception created by a requirement that does not conflict with USPAP.

danny

I thought the ASB had an unwritten rule about no criticism with current board by past members.

Something like the Pope and past presidents of the US, etc etc

:blush:

 

[DWiley]

I thought the ASB had an unwritten rule about no criticism with current board by past members.

(1) I know of no such rule, written or unwritten.
(2) I was criticizing the Q&A, not the Board.

Anyone is free to comment on things published by the ASB. The current chair could verify that I have exercised that right on several occasions.

The UASFLA specifically states that there is a JE, but none exists. The agency in charge of the "yellow book" admitted several years ago that this was a mistake, but said that changing such a document was virtually impossible.

The definition of MV in the UASFLA specifically requires, "...reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market..." So, on the one hand there must be reasonable exposure time, but on the other hand the UASFLA claims that the value cannot be based on any exposure time, even a "reasonable" one. :Eyecrazy:

There is a conflict, but it is a conflict between the UASFLA and itself, not UASFLA and USPAP.

 

[William K]

(1) I know of no such rule, written or unwritten.
(2) I was criticizing the Q&A, not the Board.

Anyone is free to comment on things published by the ASB. The current chair could verify that I have exercised that right on several occasions.

The UASFLA specifically states that there is a JE, but none exists. The agency in charge of the "yellow book" admitted several years ago that this was a mistake, but said that changing such a document was virtually impossible.

The definition of MV in the UASFLA specifically requires, "...reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market..." So, on the one hand there must be reasonable exposure time, but on the other hand the UASFLA claims that the value cannot be based on any exposure time, even a "reasonable" one.

There is a conflict, but it is a conflict between the UASFLA and itself, not UASFLA and USPAP.

MY BOLD


I believe this is often called Schizophrenia:laugh:

 

[Michael Tipton]

FHA V USPAP. FHA also requires USPAP compliance. FHA policy states appraisals have a life of four months after 01/01/10. Inconsistent FHA policy. I'll follow USPAP and federal mortgage lending regs over an inconsistent FHA policy.

Sorry Charlie, no name change for you.

 

[Lee Lansford]

A new USPAP Q & A was just released. The first and most interesting Q & A (in my opinion) is:


Client Request to Limit Scope of Work to New Client Name
Question:
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]An appraiser completed an appraisal for Client A. Client B received a copy of the appraisal from Client A and finds it acceptable for their purposes, but wants to be identified as the client in the appraisal report. Client B is aware that appraisers are prohibited from readdressing (or transferring) a completed report to a different client’s name. As a result, Client B would like to engage the appraiser in a new assignment, limiting the appraiser’s scope of work to only identifying them as the new client. Can the appraiser complete the assignment from Client B under these terms?
[/FONT][/FONT]Response:
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]No. USPAP requires the scope of work performed to produce credible assignment results. USPAP clearly establishes that the scope of work is determined by the appraiser. If a client’s instructions (i.e. assignment conditions) limit the appraiser’s scope of work in a new assignment to simply identifying a new client, the client, not the appraiser, has made the scope of work decision.

The entire document can be found here: http://www.appraisalfoundation.org/s_appraisal/bin.asp?CID=12&DID=1391&DOC=FILE.PDF
[/FONT][/FONT]

Thus, in a situation where the appraiser rightfully concludes--the appraiser's decision, not the client's--that there is no difference in the original SOW and the 2nd SOW, the appraiser can accept the 2nd assignment.

 

[CANative]

How can there be no difference in the scope of work when identifying the client is part of the scope of work ?