New USPAP Q & A October 2009

[hastalavista]

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.

Lee-

I can read the response that way too. However, here is the issue as I see it:
There is a specific question which can be answered "yes" or "no". I think it is reasonable to assume that the question is related to the recent FHA announcement.
The board answered the question with a "no". To conclude the same thing you have, one would have to read past the "no" and make an additional interpretation.

Now, don't get me wrong: I follow your point and agree that it could be read that way (and it is not an unreasonable reading). But if I read "yes" after the unambiguous "no", the appraiser is left with poor guidance and has no better understanding than before. And guidance is the point of the Q&As. :Eyecrazy:

One of the biggest complaints about appraisal reports prior to the revamp of the 1004 was that too many appraisers were ambiguous in their comments. I'd say that ambiguity has crept into this Q&A. Perhaps we should require Q&As to be answered with a check-box (yes/no/not a USPAP issue) so we can understand what is trying to be communicated.

 

[CANative]

If the scope of work was simply a name change (as implied by the ML) then all the client would receive is a blank appraisal report form with their name on it.

HUD should send out an ML clarifiying their previous ML with the simple statement: "You know what we meant!"

 

[Lee Lansford]

Lee-

I can read the response that way too. However, here is the issue as I see it:
There is a specific question which can be answered "yes" or "no". I think it is reasonable to assume that the question is related to the recent FHA announcement.
The board answered the question with a "no". To conclude the same thing you have, one would have to read past the "no" and make an additional interpretation.

Now, don't get me wrong: I follow your point and agree that it could be read that way (and it is not an unreasonable reading). But if I read "yes" after the unambiguous "no", the appraiser is left with poor guidance and has no better understanding than before. And guidance is the point of the Q&As. :Eyecrazy:

One of the biggest complaints about appraisal reports prior to the revamp of the 1004 was that too many appraisers were ambiguous in their comments. I'd say that ambiguity has crept into this Q&A. Perhaps we should require Q&As to be answered with a check-box (yes/no/not a USPAP issue) so we can understand what is trying to be communicated.

Denis-

So what is the poor appraiser to do...after rightfully (if and when appropriate) concluding that there is no difference in the SOW between two assignments...when the APPRAISER (not the client) decides that the only issue is the matter of identifying the client?

The focus of the "Q&A" is that the SOW is "determined by the appraiser" and not to be dictated by the client; I, of course, agree. The "Q&A" may have been prompted by the recent announcement from FHA regarding "name change of the client", but it applies to all appraisal assignments. I understand the "Q&A" as reminding appraisers of their responsibilities as to SOW.

If I can take a guess at something, I would guess that most "client-types", when asking for "the prior appraisal to be put in our name", are not "USPAP-smart" enough to understand the responsibilities of the appraiser in such a situation. The key here is for the appraiser to advise the client that the restriction is unacceptable.

As stated ("...Client B would like to engage the appraiser in a new assignment, LIMITING the appraiser's SOW to ONLY identifying them as the new client.") in the Q&A, the response is certainly appropriate. The point is to, first, have the client remove the unacceptable restriction and, second, allow the competent and ethical appraiser to proceed...or, not. At the end of the day, it is at least possible that the appraiser will conclude that the only differences between the two assignments is, in fact, who is identified as the client.

Are we on the same page here?

-Lee

 

[William K]

It would have been better if the answer was .......

"Limiting the Scope of Work (whether by the client or appraiser) to just changing the clients name is not permitted."

 

[Ken Youngkrantz]

Greg Boyd
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hopland, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 19,757



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the scope of work was simply a name change (as implied by the ML) then all the client would receive is a blank appraisal report form with their name on it.

My thoughts exactly Greg!

 

[Ken Youngkrantz]

What will the response from the lender be when a "name change only" sow is $100 and a "name change" with an opinion of value is $400.

 

[Tom Watson]

Maybe they should just admit the SOW is the subject and the identifier is the client. New identifier new assignment - This really is getting silly lol
If the SOW were the new client there would be a blank page with just the clients name at the top LOLOL!!!
You cut to the heart of the matter with that one greg

If the scope of work was simply a name change (as implied by the ML) then all the client would receive is a blank appraisal report form with their name on it.

HUD should send out an ML clarifiying their previous ML with the simple statement: "You know what we meant!"

 

[Tom Watson]

All SOW's need an identifier, There is no SOW without one. The SOW cannot be the identifier of the SOW - unless you get paid upfront for a blank page lolol. If I were asked to change the name of the client as the SOW, I'd have to say B of A is full of criminals. Someone has to be the subject

 

[Tres Kirkland]

I'm sure I will get blasted, but why would the scope of work be so different from one mortgage lender to another. Why should a new appraisal be required when one was just done within a short time frame (say less than 30 days). I'm all for getting paid as much as I can, but I just don't feel right about charging the borrower for a second appraisal when at the end of the day all that is being done is cloning the same report. If the date is being changed which would require a new inspection then that is different, but even then in most cases it will still be the same, unless a new comp or better comp has closed.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I'm sure I will get blasted, but why would the scope of work be so different from one mortgage lender to another.
...

You shouldn't be "blasted" for posing this the question because such is possible...but most certainly not a "given".

The discussion has to do with the SOW RULE and the client imposing unacceptable assignment conditions upon the appraiser.