Restricted Report Format For Divorce

[Terrel L. Shields]

showed up with the work file for that specific report and that's it

My lawyer challenged the request (which included all appraisals I had done for a certain bank.) But the judge threw the pleading out for other reasons. They pared down the request the next time and we only avered that they could copy the files at their expense and bring your own generator and copier.

 

[DWiley]

To the OP, you can't do a restricted report in this instance. The client, his attorney, her attorney, the judge, and others will likely be users of the report. As others have said, they want something cheap and think a Restricted report should be cheaper..

The key is the number of intended users - not the number of users. If the number of users was the determining factor, one could probably never do a Restricted Report. The fact that a report may be used in litigation (or arbitration) does not automatically make the opposing side an intended user (see USPAP FAQs).

I have had similar situations, and I have, depending on the circumstances, offered up "enhanced" Restricted Reports. For the main part of the analysis the content met the Appraisal Report standard, but for other sections the content only met the Restricted Report requirements. For example, if the HBU is not in question, then there was no need for the report to include an extensive HBU write up. In such a case, the overall report would still be a Restricted Report.

It may be possible that a Restricted Report will suffice, or maybe not. No one here can give you a definitive yes/no suggestion, because we don't have enough information. The information needed would have to be obtained via communication with the parties involved.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The information needed would have to be obtained via communication with the parties involved.

And they won't know come here from sic' um. All that they want is a "good" appraisal for a "cheap" fee and your head if you displease one side or the other.

 

[DWiley]

And they won't know come here from sic' um. All that they want is a "good" appraisal for a "cheap" fee and your head if you displease one side or the other.

Any work I did for disputes was not cheap If they want cheap, they called the wrong person. I would simply take the time to discuss the matter with them in detail 0 using plain English not appraiser speak. Then I would bill them for that time.

As for the other side, I don't even know them. Which is one of the reasons I would never identify them as an intended user. USPAP says that my report has to be meaningful to the intended users. How can I know if a report is meaningful to them if I don't even know them or know what their knowledge level is? That is why for dispute work I never named an intended user other than my client.

 

[Mark K]

I could be wrong, but I think if the appraiser is reasonably certain that others, in addition to the client, will use the report that a restricted report is not appropriate.

The last USPAP class I took stressed this exact example of a divorce appraisal and the eventual users. Instructor claimed that a restricted report is not a proper format due to the fact that the appraiser is (or should be ) aware that several other parties will be reviewing and using the report. Maybe he was wrong but I tend to agree with him.

 

[DWiley]

The last USPAP class I took stressed this exact example of a divorce appraisal and the eventual users. Instructor claimed that a restricted report is not a proper format due to the fact that the appraiser is (or should be ) aware that several other parties will be reviewing and using the report. Maybe he was wrong but I tend to agree with him.

In a typical mortgage appraisal, the appraiser is aware that the borrower will get a copy of the report - and may even intend to use that report to satisfy a clause in the purchase contract stating that the home must appraise for the sale price - but that does not make the borrower an intended user. There is only one way to become an intended user. Intending to use the report does not make one an intended user.

See FAQ 120, example 2. It is specifically about a divorce appraisal assignment and identifying the intended users in such an assignment. Perhaps that USPAP instructor was not familiar with that FAQ.


I have been hired by an attorney representing a husband in a divorce to appraise certain assets held in the marital estate and to appear as an expert witness. I know my report will go to the court as well as to the parties on the other side of the litigation. Must the court and/or the parties on the other side of the litigation be identified as intended users?


The answer for each of the four questions is no. Intended users are identified by the appraiser through communication with client and are not established based on who might receive or use the report.

The definition of intended user has a specific meaning in USPAP. In the context of the USPAP
definition of intended user, the fact that the IRS, the court, an independent auditor, or the OCC in the above cases will use your report for review, audit, or other purposes does not automatically make them intended users. These parties receive the report through established processes of disclosure or regulation

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Instructor claimed that a restricted report is not a proper format due to the fact that the appraiser is (or should be ) aware that several other parties will be reviewing and using the report

I have had attorneys ask me to appraise property confidential to them to determine if someone else's appraisal (the opposing side, for instance) is higher or lower than my estimate. If I came in unfavorable to the other appraisal or other person's claim, then the attorney does not want my appraisal to see the light of day. And in one case, as we were walking out of the courthouse the opposing side's attorney said, "If I had known you existed, I would have hired you first and you would never have come within a mile of this courthouse today."

 

[DWiley]

I have had attorneys ask me to appraise property confidential to them to determine if someone else's appraisal (the opposing side, for instance) is higher or lower than my estimate. If I came in unfavorable to the other appraisal or other person's claim, then the attorney does not want my appraisal to see the light of day. And in one case, as we were walking out of the courthouse the opposing side's attorney said, "If I had known you existed, I would have hired you first and you would never have come within a mile of this courthouse today."

That is not uncommon in litigation work. Some go so far as to ask for an oral report, so the attorney has no paper trail that might be discovered.

 

[George Hatch]

IMO, rather than getting hung up on labels the bigger and more relevant question for report content is the same as for appraisal development - identifying what will be meaningful to intended users within the context of this use. They're most likely using the "restricted" label as a synonym for "cheapest possible report", not because these parties already know enough about the appraisal problem that they don't need you to reinvent the wheel for them or because it doesn't matter how much the property is worth.

In your place I'd ask them if they think simply stating your conclusions without providing any of the support or reasoning or analysis is going to work for the readers who will be making these decisions. If not, you're going to have to play 20 questions with them to figure out exactly how much content will be meaningful to them. The level of content may very well end up looking more like what you would do in an SFR appraisal than in a 150pg narrative, but in either case it will probably amount to more than the bare minimums that apply to a Restricted Report.

 

[DWiley]

IMO, rather than getting hung up on labels the bigger and more relevant question for report content is the same as for appraisal development - identifying what will be meaningful to intended users within the context of this use. They're most likely using the "restricted" label as a synonym for "cheapest possible report", not because these parties already know enough about the appraisal problem that they don't need you to reinvent the wheel for them or because it doesn't matter how much the property is worth.

In your place I'd ask them if they think simply stating your conclusions without providing any of the support or reasoning or analysis is going to work for the readers who will be making these decisions. If not, you're going to have to play 20 questions with them to figure out exactly how much content will be meaningful to them. The level of content may very well end up looking more like what you would do in an SFR appraisal than in a 150pg narrative, but in either case it will probably amount to more than the bare minimums that apply to a Restricted Report.

Elegantly stated, George. In my view, providing a user with too much is just as bad as giving them too little. Hence, my "Enhanced" Restricted Report that I mentioned above. I often used that option when dealing with individual property owners as clients, for example. In such a case, a detailed neighborhood description or a detailed description of the improvements was often not necessary for the intended user. It was rare, however, that I did not include some support for how I got to the final value opinion. I had a very few sophisticated clients who only needed the final number, but that was very rare.