North Carolina Appraiser Background Check Law Passes

[Evincere]

I'd say this is a positive for BC companies in terms of ensconcement and market-share for appraisers
.

How so?

 

[sandpiperapp]

Sounds to me like JT is concerned about the competition. States do background checks and appraisers can share that with any lender they choose to do business with.

JT's slice of the appraiser parasite pie can shrink quite a bit.

It seems she may have to deal with a Background Check Management Company (the states) and give up a large chunk of business.

You know, kinda like what she helps her clients do to appraisers.

My my.

 

[hastalavista]

How so?

The same way HVCC ensconced AMCs.

The state has now said, "AMCs must accept background checks that are current (within one year).
You don't think that sets a new minimum requirement for BC checks?
I do.
If you don't, then I refer you back to the HVCC. Which never specifically stated that lenders need order appraisals through AMCs. But stated that if they were going to order appraisals, then they'd have to do it in a manner that excluded the origination division from controlling the process. AMCs were naturally the answer to this requirement.

North Carolina has now stated that IF AMCs require a background check, then they must accept an BC that is current (within one year). Doesn't that strike you as being a similar opportunity for a BC company to offer the same kind of "compliance" that AMCs provided with the roll-out of HVCC? It does to me.

The argument that the state does the BC is not persuasive as far as I'm concerned. It isn't persuasive because I've never received my BC from the state so I can use it to give to my clients to show them that I'm not a risk. Has anyone else, from any state, district, or territory, received a copy of their regulator's BC run on them that they can then use to satisfy a client's BC requirement?
If so, then obviously I'm incorrect in my line of thought.

Forget about Joan and ClearBox. She's a lightening rod in any discussion in this forum.
Ask yourself if the concept of background checks on licensed professionals who enter consumers homes and who (in the majority) are contracted by regulated financial institutions is far fetched.

I don't think it is far fetched or unreasonable. It doesn't matter if I think it is 'right' or 'fair'. It makes sense from a risk-mitigation perspective of the lenders. It is one less target they have on their backs, and for the most part, it doesn't cost them a dime. They can require their AMCs (Appraisal Management Companies) to only engage appraisers for their assignments who have had BCs. That cost is either absorbed by the AMC (fat chance) or the appraiser. A company that acts as a clearinghouse for that documentation provides an easy way for the lender and AMC to fulfill that requirement.

Other than the Joan-hate, I really don't understand why anyone would not see this to be the natural progression of the current regulatory regime.

Marion provided me the link to ClearBox and I looked at its website. I would never sign-up for that service. Not because it is Joan's company but because I don't want my personal history available to a 3rd party vendor that makes it available to be shared (even if that "share" requires my authorization). I'm probably more suspicious about the ability of the internet or government to keep secure my personal information than most on this forum.
But having said that, if my current lending-clients asked me to provide a BC to maintain my business relationship with them, I'd agree (with little hesitation). I'm lucky; my current lending clients are direct-engagement and I have established a personal relationship with each client. I wouldn't think that request is intrusive, given that they are banks and that they have a responsibility and interest in ensuring their customers (the borrower) is protected. I'd probably get more scrutiny if I tried to apply for a teller position (never entering a home) then I would as an appraiser (likely required to enter a home).
So if I don't think that request is intrusive from my lending clients (FRIs), I cannot argue it is intrusive by any lending client.

 

[Carnivore]

Agreed.

There is a lot to be said for one page laws.

I like 'em.

.

My State Government is actually quite good. The State Legislators(Reps and Senators) are accessible. Two of my old and good friends(one State Rep and One is a State Senator) live in my neighborhood and we see each other quite often. I have their ear if I want it. I gave both of them a thumbs up on this legislation. Something people should remember this does not provide cover for the Criminally minded Appraisers out there or incredibly stupid appraisers who try to put lipstick on a pig or who create omission of critical data. This is a good law it is pro small business.

 

[Adios]

You forgot to add all of the other things your user agreement allows, like when you used your x-file database/background check without the lender's or appraisers' permission in an effort to sell your product to the lender. Yes, we're at the point states must protect their citizens from people like you by passing laws to regulate your business.[/QUOTE


OK I reread it this morning. It calls for two things. 1) a statute of limitation on civil actions against appraisers for 5 years. 2) a background check if within 12 months must be shared.

It is 2 that makes no sense on how you can force someone to violate a federal law. Do you want companies sharing your background check with anyone without your permission?

 

[Bob Ipock]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2015 HOUSE BILL 651 RATIFIED BILL

*H651-v-5*

AN ACT TO BAR CIVIL ACTIONS FILED AFTER THE PERIOD OF RECORD RETENTION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE OR FIVE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, AND TO REQUIRE APPRAISAL MANAGEMENT COMPANIES TO ACCEPT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS PERFORMED WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWELVE MONTHS.

The law:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H651v5.pdf

The vote:
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015&BillID=H651

.

 

[Bob Ipock]

It was sent to Gov. McCrory on 7/31/15. I see no reason he will not sign it into law.

 

[Evincere]

The same way HVCC ensconced AMCs.

The state has now said, "AMCs must accept background checks that are current (within one year).
You don't think that sets a new minimum requirement for BC checks?
I do.

Finally! Are there - were there - any minimum standards or guidance established anywhere with anyone?

If you don't, then I refer you back to the HVCC. Which never specifically stated that lenders need order appraisals through AMCs. But stated that if they were going to order appraisals, then they'd have to do it in a manner that excluded the origination division from controlling the process. AMCs were naturally the answer to this requirement

.

Mainly because of misunderstanding the HVCC, or they were told, or led to believe there were no alternatives or just did not have interest in pursuing alternatives.

North Carolina has now stated that IF AMCs require a background check, then they must accept an BC that is current (within one year). Doesn't that strike you as being a similar opportunity for a BC company to offer the same kind of "compliance" that AMCs provided with the roll-out of HVCC? It does to me.

Yes, I bolded for you - a simple to read one page uncomplicated legislative bill UNLIKE the contrived, complex HVCC authored by people of questionable character with an opportunistic, self serving agenda.

The argument that the state does the BC is not persuasive as far as I'm concerned. It isn't persuasive because I've never received my BC from the state so I can use it to give to my clients to show them that I'm not a risk. Has anyone else, from any state, district, or territory, received a copy of their regulator's BC run on them that they can then use to satisfy a client's BC requirement? If so, then obviously I'm incorrect in my line of thought

.

Neither here nor there. What the bill says is that if a BC is performed, and it is within one year, it must be accepted regardless of which BC company does it if . IF the state of NC does the check it will be acceptable per the rules. Since NC passed a law it would not be surprising to find they will provide BCs upon request for the Appraiser. And BCs in general will pick up the egregious offenses such as felonies that Lenders are seeking for vetting purposes.

Other than the Joan-hate, I really don't understand why anyone would not see this to be the natural progression of the current regulatory regime.

Oh, it was progressing alright, wild west style, Nazi regime MO with no guidance and rules made as they went along. To where background checks were being demanded as a matter of routine, to be performed by the AMCs BC provider of choice, to the point that regardless of how recent a BC was or the authority that performed the check, the BC was considered to be unacceptable. NC law just nipped that in the bud with what basically is a cease and desist law.

Marion provided me the link to ClearBox and I looked at its website. I would never sign-up for that service. Not because it is Joan's company but because I don't want my personal history available to a 3rd party vendor that makes it available to be shared (even if that "share" requires my authorization). I'm probably more suspicious about the ability of the internet or government to keep secure my personal information than most on this forum.

see comments below.

But having said that, if my current lending-clients asked me to provide a BC to maintain my business relationship with them, I'd agree (with little hesitation). I'm lucky; my current lending clients are direct-engagement and I have established a personal relationship with each client. I wouldn't think that request is intrusive, given that they are banks and that they have a responsibility and interest in ensuring their customers (the borrower) is protected. I'd probably get more scrutiny if I tried to apply for a teller position (never entering a home) then I would as an appraiser (likely required to enter a home).
So if I don't think that request is intrusive from my lending clients (FRIs), I cannot argue it is intrusive by any lending client

Dennis, many besides you have been saying the exact same thing - you're preaching to the choir. Its the Appraisers choice, to do business with clients they choose to do business with based upon the extent to which they value the clients business and their history with the client. The argument or opposition, in large part has been about AMCs trending towards requiring a BC as a matter of routine in the same manner in which the Appraisers license, E/O and resume is collected to sit on the roster just in case one day, there's an order in the appraisers area for the fee the AMC is offering for the job. The BC information is sensitive, very personal and not for perusal or reading amusement of a former hair dresser who has landed a job with an AMC as an order placer

 

[Carnivore]

The Law is not perfect but its better than nothing. I personally think my state should do a background check once every five years. That's what NC does for Concealed Carry permit. I renew my concealed carry every five years and pay for a background check. This is a real cost saver, not just for the appraiser but also for all the layers of Government. Nothing Personal Joan, but I will never use your service, NEVER! Simply because you are small fish in a big pond. Data base hacking is on the rise and will get worse before it gets better. I want and do limit my personal and financial information to as few people/entities as I possibly can. If you get hacked I have no way to recover from you because POOF your company goes bankrupt or disappears in the middle of the night. How do I know, because there have been many just like you that have done it in the past. Again nothing personal, but I actually don't want you to succeed because when the crap hits the fan a lot of financially dead appraisers will be all around as you go on and start up another business under a different name.

 

[Adios]

The same way HVCC ensconced AMCs.

The state has now said, "AMCs must accept background checks that are current (within one year).
You don't think that sets a new minimum requirement for BC checks?
I do.
If you don't, then I refer you back to the HVCC. Which never specifically stated that lenders need order appraisals through AMCs. But stated that if they were going to order appraisals, then they'd have to do it in a manner that excluded the origination division from controlling the process. AMCs were naturally the answer to this requirement.

North Carolina has now stated that IF AMCs require a background check, then they must accept an BC that is current (within one year). Doesn't that strike you as being a similar opportunity for a BC company to offer the same kind of "compliance" that AMCs provided with the roll-out of HVCC? It does to me.

The argument that the state does the BC is not persuasive as far as I'm concerned. It isn't persuasive because I've never received my BC from the state so I can use it to give to my clients to show them that I'm not a risk. Has anyone else, from any state, district, or territory, received a copy of their regulator's BC run on them that they can then use to satisfy a client's BC requirement?
If so, then obviously I'm incorrect in my line of thought.

Forget about Joan and ClearBox. She's a lightening rod in any discussion in this forum.
Ask yourself if the concept of background checks on licensed professionals who enter consumers homes and who (in the majority) are contracted by regulated financial institutions is far fetched.

I don't think it is far fetched or unreasonable. It doesn't matter if I think it is 'right' or 'fair'. It makes sense from a risk-mitigation perspective of the lenders. It is one less target they have on their backs, and for the most part, it doesn't cost them a dime. They can require their AMCs (Appraisal Management Companies) to only engage appraisers for their assignments who have had BCs. That cost is either absorbed by the AMC (fat chance) or the appraiser. A company that acts as a clearinghouse for that documentation provides an easy way for the lender and AMC to fulfill that requirement.

Other than the Joan-hate, I really don't understand why anyone would not see this to be the natural progression of the current regulatory regime.

Marion provided me the link to ClearBox and I looked at its website. I would never sign-up for that service. Not because it is Joan's company but because I don't want my personal history available to a 3rd party vendor that makes it available to be shared (even if that "share" requires my authorization). I'm probably more suspicious about the ability of the internet or government to keep secure my personal information than most on this forum.
But having said that, if my current lending-clients asked me to provide a BC to maintain my business relationship with them, I'd agree (with little hesitation). I'm lucky; my current lending clients are direct-engagement and I have established a personal relationship with each client. I wouldn't think that request is intrusive, given that they are banks and that they have a responsibility and interest in ensuring their customers (the borrower) is protected. I'd probably get more scrutiny if I tried to apply for a teller position (never entering a home) then I would as an appraiser (likely required to enter a home).
So if I don't think that request is intrusive from my lending clients (FRIs), I cannot argue it is intrusive by any lending client.

Dennis well said..... I think a lot of folks are reading stuff into this that just isn't there. The 5 year rule seems rational for a statute of limitations. But to expect anyone to be forced by law to violate YOUR privacy is absurd and unenforceable.