I defy anyone to read that definition and say that it doesn't mean that appraisers are required to maintain sole control of their signature. Sure, it's indirectly stated as part of a definition, but that doesn't make it any less of a rule. In practial application, how could anyone possibly consider it any other way?
By the way, in USPAP 2008-2009, this definition is found on lines 137 through 141.
Yikes! Almost hate to weigh in on this one. But here goes.
I have not spoken directly to the head administrator of my state board on this, but I do remember a specific section of the USPAP 7 hour update class on it, and have my common sense.
The word "
control" is not defined within that definition of signature. I'll example. If I give Bob permission to use my car today on 5/8/2008 to go to a pharmacist five miles away to get some pills, does this imply I gave Bob permission to take off to Mexico with my car or use it any damn time Bob feels like it for the rest of eternity? No, it does not imply the other two things. I only gave up "
control" of my car for the purpose on one trip, five miles away and back, to get some pills. If Bob comes and takes my car on 5/9/2008 to go to Mexico, without my permission, Bob just stole my car. Am I free to call the police and seek to have Bob arrested for car theft as I did not say Bob could use my car that day? Answer: Yes. ...So Bob better sure as heck not confuse having permission to temporarily "
use" my car with Bob now having "
control" of my car. I did not sell my car to Bob. I still own it. And this certainly should not be confused with Bob being in control of my car during the period he had permission to use it. Steering the car safely around a corner is a different kind of "
control" being applied.
If I forget to lock my car in my driveway, does the fact I errored and possibly allowed "
access" to my car imply that anyone on the planet is allowed to just take it because I legally gave up "
control" of my car? I know everyone on the forum knows the answer to that one if they walk out of their house or office today and find their car gone. The element of permission to use personal property is missing, is it not?
Now, the entire problem here, if I failed to make Bob sign a written document regarding the permission was only on 5/8/2008, it could become a he said, I said, situation. A reasonable man might decide, or a police officer, or a judge, that I did not give permission for Bob to take off to Mexico using my car to do so. But what if later it was proven I had loaned my car for Bob's use dozens and dozens of times? The he said, I said, thing is going to tend to swing over into Bob's favor that I had given permission to use my car anytime, for any purpose.
So I believe we have far too many people here that are in reality mixing up "
access" with "
control" regarding what must be considered personal property, a persons signature. Just because I leave my car in my driveway, versus locking in a garage, have I given up "
control" of my car to anyone that cares to take it? Just because my digital signature exists on the hard drive of a computer for storage and somebody else figured out how to gain "
access" to that, did I at any point intentionally give them "
control" of it? Or did they steal my personal property? Perhaps the decision will in fact come down to
how often I allowed the other person to use it at my specific instructions to do so, or if I
never gave permission for the other person to use it.
Extend the above to our digital signatures. Call your own state board. I don't believe this is as simple as quoting the defintion of signature in the USPAP manual.
Webbed.
P.S. Does parking my electronic signature on a company server,
with a written agreement with the company that I retain ownership and nobody else has permission to use that signature without my knowledge and specific instructions to do so, constitute giving up "
control" of that personal property under any standards of our industry? If another person takes advantage of the "
access" and steals it, without my knowledge and permission, is the fact I agreed to "
store" it on what was supposed to be protected server access become my negligence and responsibility? All I am saying is I think we have quite a few unanswered questions on this one. If someone thinks my post is silly, I highly recommend the person never uses credit cards. Because everyone of us that do use credit cards has our credit card information sitting on computer servers all over the world probably. Obviously, since we allowed that we are then 100% financially responsible for the access anyone makes and uses of that credit card information without our permission even if we catch it and report it.
