Review Appraiser "Hides" behind client relationship

[George Hatch]

BESIDES all that, an appraiser doesn't need to know who the reviewer is to defend their workproduct. The only reason reviewers need to know appraiser identities is to deal with licensing and qualifications issues, and that's only when it's part of the review assignment. Except for that a reviewer can easily review a workproduct without knowing the identity of the appraiser, just as an appraiser can defend their appraisal and address the review without knowing who the reviewer is.

On a personal level, I don't really care one way or another. I'd never say something about another appraiser's work in a review that I wouldn't say to their face. If it matters to my client then it matters to me; if it doesn't matter to them then it doesn't matter to me.

 

[xm72mhd]

Edd, it is simple. You don't discuss the appraisal assignment with anyone without permission from the client. Preferably in writing. This ain't rocket science.

Oh, Thanks for telling me. I was hoping for rocket science

I sort of got the message that the confidentiality provision says don't discuss the appraisal results with anyone. I missed the stuff about the assignment and permission. Then there is the fuzzy coment thrown in there too. To that question I was told results and information are different things.

Never mind in this case (or was it the other one) the client ordered the review and the appraisal and then gave the appraiser the review. What would a rocket scientist do with that? I know. Its confidential!

Whatever, its a mess, but the premise of your comment is correct. That is the way it is and even a rocket scientist should be able to follow along.

 

[Fred]

Based upon my conversations with folks in related and other professions, this phenomenon is not unique to our group; appraisers

Frank, I once joked in post -
Q how many appraisers does it take to change a light bulb?
A Ten. One ot change the bulb and nine to stand around and say, “not bad, but I could have done it better.”
You asked if you could use it. The fact is, that I came up with that many years ago, describing one of my former avocations. So yes, I am aware of the degree to which the idea applies elsewhere, but I am aware of the degree to which there differences from other vocations, and even uniqueness.

Talk with real estate agents, title companies, mortgage loan solicitors, politicians, hair stylists, carpenters, painters or picture framers. It's common to hear everyone else is a hack.

I wouldn’t lump all of that together - and maybe none of that ought to go together with appraising. For example, if the stylist’s client goes bald, if the carpenter’s shelves fall down, if the painter’s coats wash away, and if the framer’s picture falls down – no client has trouble identifying negligence or needs the opinion of another tradesman to sue for negligence. That's just for starters. If you don't recognize that we have some unique circumstnaces, so be it.

 

[Ruben Ramon]

If an appraiser called me to discuss a review I did on them, I would simply tell them that they are not an intended user.

A point to consider as well, you don't know about the scope of work involved in this. At best, this appriaser did a drive by, and, despite your description of the outbuilding, might have undervalued it.

Have you also considered the possibility of that barn being a super adequacy (sorry about the spelling).