this is not a real estate appraisal."
I knew that statement would get someone fired up. Keep in mind that my statements are speculative are intended to generate an informative debate. A debate that hopefully myself and others learn from. The client want/need is a very fine line that we all have to deal with. I have no problem standing up and losing business. In a slow 2010 I have lost several orders this week by standing my ground on non negotiable areas. i am not looking for a workaround, but there has to be a correct form to a retro appraisal on. Some of the 1996 2055 could be misleading. By the way the use of "contradictions" was the most appropriate word from a departure (not that word again) in the prefilled SOW and Certifications. It was not being made in reference to USPAP.
What I am trying get you to accept is altering the buzz words doesn't alter USPAP or your states administrative rules, OR how your state board interpretates USPAP. I believe that the Oregon board has pretty much said if an appraiser signs a form with preprinted language in one location of that form that says one thing, and the appraiser drops back in the appraiser's addendum and contradicts what was said with something else, that the result is probably going to be a misleading appraisal report per USPAP.
I just called that state and we do not have a department to advise on specific appraisal issues. They do not have the budget to payroll staff appraisers. They did however inform that they have a trainee on their investigative team (that’s reassuring). What is the right answer hear?
Now then, don't take my word for it.... CALL YOUR OWN BOARD!!!
Yes, they will.. and yes it was a self-created loaded question... Glad you asked! ... Again, to be pointed here... why don't we just give an alcoholic a fifth of anything, because they want it, and just disclose what we did? This is about professional and social responsibility of our trade members, not about what outside parties want out of us.
I agree. That statement was include to evoke a response.
Again, CALL YOUR OWN BOARD ABOUT THIS!
I don't agree. That appraisal report did not come to you directly from the other appraiser. How do you know it has not been altered? .. More, you make assumptions regarding the validiaty of the data and source that if those assumptions turn out to be incorrect they do what? Do they affect your opinions, conclusions, and analyses? If they do adversely affect your stuff... per USPAP that is defined to be a what?
How do I know that moon landing wasn't a hoax or that Elvis is truly dead. There is a point where you have fulfilled your DUE Diligence. Everything else after that is an extraordinary assumption. If these EA’s are incorrect it obviously affect that appraisal. However, the purpose of an EA is disclose lack of definiteness. If it was definite than you wouldn’t need an EA.
The above is NOT your research.... It is somebody else's and you would not know if any of it was verified at all, unless you verify it all over again. What are you doing? Including a review and stating you agree with the information? If not, how will you make any of that work due to the preprinted SOW on the 03/05 2055 without modifying the SOW?
How is using the old appraisal any different that using MLS records or Assessment records that can only be verified to a certain extend. We are only as accurate as our data source. But with-in all data sources there is a natural variance. How would the old appraisal not be a verified disinterested source? Would it be verified after I called the original appraiser and asked him to verify he did this report correctly. There is such a thing as a point of reasinable accuracy.
Oh really?? Ok, explain to me why then a property owner cannot directly be the source of delivery of an appraisal report to a lender then? How come all the lenders have to have the reports sent directly from the appraisers to them exclusively and the reports cannot pass through the hands of a borrower first? Sorry, there is already industry precedence that you are incorrect.
I fail to see the relevance of this analogy. Why do hot dogs come in packs of 10 and buns come in packs of 8? Also, the original appraisal probably was delivered to the lender first and then to the borrower.
See the above. My expectations would then be that you'd be placing the lender in violation of FIRREA doing that. By extension of vital information passing through the hands of the borrower.
My point was, why do they even have a check box on the 03/05 for property owner if it contradicts “Violates” the certifications?
I believe that there are right and wrong answers. The confusion caused is by those that seek to water down everything, at every turn, so that they can justify whatever it is their clients want in order to take the easy way out and obtain more work. The confusion caused for this purpose is intentional. The sources of it is numerous, but they all have one thing in common, trying to justify one's actions in an attempt to satisfy clients in order to obtain work. All of them seek to get around USPAP and state administrative rules, not comply with them.
