Reinspection new effective appraisal date same LOE

[J Grant]

I would put the first inspection date as the effective date and disclose that three weeks later, you went back to confirm that a sump pump was fixed. This is the true order of events, correct? We are better off disclosing truthfully instead of trying to fudge things.

 

[alebrewer]

If all dates are disclosed, no one is trying to fudge anything. That is just a silly notion.

 

[alebrewer]

I would put the first inspection date as the effective date and disclose that three weeks later, you went back to confirm that a sump pump was fixed. This is the true order of events, correct? We are better off disclosing truthfully instead of trying to fudge things.

If the effective date of valuation is the first date, then the work still hasn't been completed as of the effective date of valuation, and the appraiser would have to make the appraisal 'subject to' completion of the work - even though it's already been done. This seems a lot of wrangling for a not that difficult situation...

 

[J Grant]

If the effective date of valuation is the first date, then the work still hasn't been completed as of the effective date of valuation, and the appraiser would have to make the appraisal 'subject to' completion of the work - even though it's already been done. This seems a lot of wrangling for a not that difficult situation...

The appraiser should have made it subject to the first time. The appraiser sometimes needs to educate the client. Or, made it as is, and noted a broken sump pump.

That said, it is what it is. The situation is about disclosure—the appraiser should disclose what happened, and in the order it happened, not fudge things. The appraiser went there on the first date to inspect the valuation, which is the effective date. The appraiser disclosed that they returned on X later date to confirm that a sump pump they noted as broken was repaired.

Simple and true to events.

 

[alebrewer]

Or.... wait for it.... The appraiser could make the current date the effective date and disclose the prior inspection and findings. No one is 'fudging' anything, J. How do we expect the public to trust us if we have our own accusing each other of trying to 'fudge' things?

 

[J Grant]

Or.... wait for it.... The appraiser could make the current date the effective date and disclose the prior inspection and findings. No one is 'fudging' anything, J. How do we expect the public to trust us if we have our own accusing each other of trying to 'fudge' things?

They could do it that way, but what is the point?
If the first date was when they inspected to value the property, that is the effective date. They returned to check the sump pump repair. Did they even go back inside the second date? IDK.

 

[Tom4value]

I'm not arguing with you by any means, but is it possible to have a new Effective Date [2 total} for an AS IS assignment? Would requiring the original assignment to disappear violate USPAP?Probably difficult to cite "prior involvement" to a prior involvement that no longer exists!!!! Hmmmmm Or does this pertain to a "business decision" like Nephew Glenn sometimes mentions?

My take is that the inspection the first time was for an appraisal that never happened. The second inspection was merely a revision of the same appraisal so no prior involvement/assignment needs to be disclosed per USPAP. Mentioning the prior inspection, in my opinion, is not necessary but if the appraiser wishes to mention it and explain why it changed (repair work) is also fine. However, if an appraisal was made and submitted AND THEN the client changed the parameters then it would need to the prior involvement.

 

[J Grant]

My take is that the inspection the first time was for an appraisal that never happened. The second inspection was merely a revision of the same appraisal so no prior involvement/assignment needs to be disclosed per USPAP. Mentioning the prior inspection, in my opinion, is not necessary but if the appraiser wishes to mention it and explain why it changed (repair work) is also fine. However, if an appraisal was made and submitted AND THEN the client changed the parameters then it would need to the prior involvement.

?? The appraiser went there twice, which means they must disclose the first time they went. The disclosure is for ANY prior service.

Did the appraisal not happen? My impression is that the appraiser did the appraisal, but perhaps did not turn it in. It does not matter—they went there on a prior date for a valuation and the rule is to disclose any prior service (whether or not it was an appraisal ) . Why recommend doing this-not disclosing a prior service is a USPAP violation.

 

[alebrewer]

They could do it that way, but what is the point?

Um - the reason would be so that they didn't have to make the appraisal 'subject to' completion of the work...

 

[J Grant]

Um - the reason would be so that they didn't have to make the appraisal 'subject to' completion of the work...

And you liked post 17, where he advised not to disclose a prior service?

The OP already did not make the appraisal subject to - then went back and re-inspected anyway. Whatever-