I agree with both Jerry and Tony and will add this:
A problem could arise if, during your review of another's work, you find something that significantly contradicts what you know based on your previous report as of your effective date of that previous report.
Another forumite, Greg Boyd, had this exact problem; he had previously appraised a property with significant condition issues that were not discussed/disclosed in a report he reviewed for that same property after his original visit.
Let's assume that the report you are reviewing is consistent (more or less) with what you observed during your previous assignment, and that its value conclusion is reasonable, credible and supported. No problem, move along to the next assignment.
If, however, you find a significant difference, what do you do then? What I would do is point out that difference in my review; I cannot "unknown" what I know. This would mean disclosing that I had previously inspected the property for another assignment. IMO, there is no confidentiality issue disclosing this (unless I had specifically agreed with my previous client that all information regarding that assignment was confidential; in such a case I would have to decline the review assignment).
What I would want to be careful about is making sure I consider that it is possible the items I observed during my inspection that cause concern could have been corrected by the time the second appraisal (the one I'm reviewing) was complete.
I think my responsibility to the lender would be to do the following:
A. Acknowledge I've previously inspected the subject for another assignment.
B. That, at the time of my previous inspection, I noted the following items that were of concern to me at that time.
C. That in the current report under review, there is no mention of these items, if they existed, or if they have been remedied.
D. That, if the report under review is accurate in its depiction of the subject, then its value is reasonable and supported. However, IMO, if the issues I observed previously remain, then the report has failed to adequately address these issues, which are critical to this report's credibility.
E. That I Recommend to the client that it either:
1. Request a specific comment from the originator regarding x,y,z (all the significant items I recall).
2. Upgrade the review to an interior inspection.
F. That my review is made based on the EA that the report does accurately report the condition of the subject, and that the items I previously observed have been remedied.
In my mind, this provides the client with all the data it needs to make a prudent decision on how to proceed.
I've brought up my concern.
I've noted that the original appraisal, if accurate, is acceptable.
I've suggested that my concerns warrant verification by either having the original appraiser address them specifically, or by me conducting a site visit.
I think this fulfills my responsibility to my client.
