Review Question-Regarding signatures.

[Cherylb]

I just recieved a review, that the lender has "blacked out" the signatures and license data. Previously, all names and data has been provided. But this is the first review request since the first of the year, has the law regarding revealing the signatures changed, if so, where did I miss it? Was it just in FL?

 

[MAC]

You know I just love it when they do that. As you know there are many places on the apppraisal where you cawn figure out who the appraiser is. Check the headers and footers. Check the sketch. I know of no rule change.

 

[Randy Beigh]

cherylb

No rules changes, but different lenders have different requirements.

The name should have no effect on how your review is completed, however.

 

[Dee Dee]

I've only had one review on my work, and the identity of the reviewer was blacked out. The review itself was a joke because the reviewer never read the addendum that was a part of my appraisal, and would have addressed most of his/her concerns had they done so.
I certainly would like to know if this reviewer was a real appraiser or just some pencil pusher who wasn't even familiar with my area.
IMO...any reviewer who doesn't have the guts to leave their name and qualifications on the reports that they review are cowards. Would also like some apologies if they were wrong....(pfffft! NOW I'm dreaming).

 

[Dave Smith]

As an occassional reviewer I won't do the review unless the lender provides me with a report with all addendums and nothing blacked out. I have never had a problem getting what I need if I ask politely for it. I really don't care if the name is on it as I can usually figure out who did the report. The addendum is a MUST as I can't, and won't even attempt to do the review without it.

Just my $.02 worth.

 

[Bill S]

I'm not aware of a rule change but 95% of reviews sent to me have always had the appraiser's name blacked out.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Yeah, the names are blacked out, but you sure can recognize the work. We probably have over 500 appraisers in may area and there are certain appraisers work that tend to get reviewed more often than others. I wonder why? You are right though, you can find the name or company any number of places throughout the report. Anybody that reviews my work would have to white-out every pages top and bottom header and then search for areas in the body of the report, too.

 

[George Hatch]

2002 USPAP

SR 3-1 "In developing an appraisal review, the reviewer must:
(B)(v) identify the appraiser(s) who completed the work under review; unless the identity was withheld." Lines 1161-1162

If the identity of the original appraiser was withheld from you, you should note that in your appraisal report so as to CYA. There are arguments for and against a reviewer being able to identify the original appraiser:


Pro Arguments (Reviewers should be required to ID the appraiser)

Part of the review process is being able to ascertain whether the original appraiser is a current licensee, and whether that license level is sufficient for the appraisal assignment.

A reviewer might be able to solve any questions or obtain clarifications by contacting the original appraiser directly. Helps expedite fixable problems.

A reviewer should be able/required to make a complaint to the appropriate regulatory agency (state and/or federal) in the event of appraiser misconduct, up to and including criminal violations.

Reviewers already certify that their work is unbiased, professional and competent. Any misconduct on a reviewer's part is already a violation of USPAP; the original appraiser shouldn't need any more protection that that.



Con Arguments (Reviewers should not be allowed to ID the appraiser)

In our competitive business, reviewers sometimes are reviewing work from their local competition, including those from competing appraisal organizations (appraisal designations vs. non-designated, etc.). A reviewer might get nasty about an appraiser for self-serving reasons.

A reviewer might let a buddy slide when they shouldn't.

The required review certifications and ethical requirements in USPAP are insufficient to protect the careers of appraisers when it comes to unscrupulous reviewers.


As it is now, USPAP has straddled the fence on this debate. We are not currently required (by USPAP) to be able to identify the original appraiser.

 

[jtrotta]

George; under your "Pro's & Con's" I assume you are speaking of your interpretation of what YOU believe belongs or doesn't belong and cannot be found in "Standard 3" ??

As I reviewd the Standard it was not my understanding of what is being promoted there. Secondly, if the appraiser's name is blacked out, then a comment needs to be included in the "Review" which also includes the statement that because the appraiser's name was not provided, the Reviewer could not verify the "License and/or Certification" status of the appriaser.

I did not see anywhere in the context of "Standard 3" where it states that you are required to report anyone for anything, but that the "Assignment" given to the Reviewer is to clearly point out what type of "Review" is being ordered. Now on several reviews I've recently completed, there was specific language as to why the review was being ordered and those were the Rules I applied when doing the report. If one is specifically calling for a review, as their belief is, something fishy with the report, then I go into a different mind set, other than just a review for a review product.

Reviews are a wide & varied product and I believe each one is to address a specific issue. They are different from appraisals and require a different mind set and should not be used as a means of simply hammering the other guy/gal - they should be done with pride and improvement within our own industry.

My personal opinion; Reviews should be done in the right manner and used to keep our competition on it's toes; keep their report writting up to snuff; make them stay on top of their game; and make them better appraisers. After all if we create better appraisals & better appraiser's, perhaps the Lending Industry will have a greater respect for our profession. It will also force the slackers, to stay in context with better reports, as they will have to address the crtique provided by the reviewer and address the review appraiser's concerns in the report. There is a little area in which as a reviewer you get to control the report; accept or accept when items - XYZ - are corrected. If they don't make the corrections, you don't approve the report. :x

Lastly; if you get the same appraiser over & over and they do not improve the report product, by the third one, we should be able to recomend to the State that they need to complete a course or two on the issue's they seem to not understand. Self Improvement within the industry; a better way to go. 8)

 

[George Hatch]

I should probably have been more clear in stating the origins of the pros and cons I listed. I got these from other appraisers while I was teaching the CE courses. And no, these reasons do not anywhere appear in USPAP. They are simply arguments. I was trying to present both sides of the argument. Feel free to add your own if they aren't already included.


As for reviews serving a positive purpose, I completely agree. Sometimes that positive purpose will be to concur with a good appraisal. Sometimes it will contribute to a minor correction of an error in fact, or a clarification that will enable the typical reader to more easily follow the reasoning. Sometimes it will contribute to an appraiser not being 'married' to one of their mistakes. And sometimes it will contribute to the well being of our industry and the public at large by forcing the discipline or removal of a bad apple from our barrel. The original appraiser might not like it much, but they are not the client. It's kinda like a borrower who doesn't like one of our values in an appraisal; their needs are very secondary to those of our clients.

My personal experience with appraisal reviews of my work has never been a negative experience; I don't have a problem with reviewers and I don't have a negative relationship with them. I reckon that anyone who does have that problem should probably look at the work they're turning out.

It is true that reviewers are not required by USPAP to turn in bad appraisals to their state boards. But there is nothing in USPAP that suggests that they cannot or should not. I have heard of state boards (California's OREA is one of them) encouraging reviewers to turn in bad appraisals. And there's talk of requiring them to do so by enacting laws. I would not be surprised to hear of such legislation in the near future, nor is there any reason to believe that it would ever be a violation of USPAP.

One other thing. An adverse review on an appraisal is just exactly that. It isn't personal, at least it isn't supposed to be. Turning a bad appraisal over to the appropriate regulatory agency is nowhere near the same thing as turning in a 'bother appraiser'. We do not aspire to have our own 'thin blue line' or code of silence about appraiser misconduct. An appraiser who is out there harming the public and our industry by putting out either shoddy and/or fraudulent work is no kind of relative to a truly professional appraiser.

You're from New York, right? Just out of curiosity, how many appraisers are there in New York, and how many have been disciplined by the state to the point where they lose their license? The last time I checked, there are 10,835 appraisers in California. We have had as many as 16,000 active licenses at one time, of which only about 85 have had a non-renewable, suspended or revoked license over the course of the last 10 years. Do the math; we're only talking about .53%, as in 1/2 of 1%. We get a few more every 6 months. You should read the summaries of these charges as they are published. It isn't like these folks are getting the shaft for a minor violation like a typo or some little USPAP nuance. Most of these folks were engaged in the worst kind of appraisal practices you can imagine.