Review Question-Regarding signatures.

[William Harmon]

As a review appraiser of many moons
It is my strong held belief that we in this profession are entitled to know who we are Reviewing, and who has reviewed us.

I have seen hatchet jobs done on my fellow appraisers by “Protected Review Appraisers” They can say anything with Immunity. I insist that a copy of my review is sent to the appraiser, I insist on the right to call the appraiser and discuss the assignment.
Case in point Lender sent me a review it appeared to be complete, found a $1000 repair on the house just from road. Under Section of condition of improvements, the appraiser had see addendum, went to addendum no mention of the Improvements. I also noted I did not have one page of the appraisal report as I had 15 and the table of contents stated 16
The appraiser had made a $1000 adjustment for the Defect under condition

Called appraiser it appears the LO from the Mortgage office pulled the second page of the addendum where the appraiser discussed this. The appraiser and I both converged on the Company that was going to purchase the loan. LO of course denied everything, of course Loan did not go through. Lo later admitted the he pulled page as it made his deal look bad

Peer review in my humble low opinion means knowing who is doing what, and their knowledge. I am not afraid to put my name on a review as I hope it teaches and at the same time teaches me. It just seem cowardly to hide behind Blacked out Names.


Am I wrong my fellow Appraisers? :?
Attila The deal Killer

 

[Ruth Langkawel]

Hi Attilla!

Making a long story as short as possible- Here's my side of the name game:

Appraisers are by nature opinionated - else why would we choose selling our opinion for a living? Now, this might shock some, but some appraisers feel that they are better/smarter/have the only clear set of procedures and terminology to be used in reporting an appraisal. And in West Michigan, there is a substantial number of persons - some in the appraisal field - who believe that they are more worthy than others. Many of these more worthy persons, that are of the male persuasion, also believe that women have a place, and their profession is not that place.

Now, that background stated, I know of more than one appraiser in this area that arrives at their opinion before getting the facts, then searches for a set of "facts" to prove themselves right. I'm sure you've seen them also.

Here's where the identifying information creates a possible bias. The appraisal development and reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the appraisers sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation, address, or length of time carrying an appraisers license (license number). The review is of the development and reporting. It is not a platform of attack against a competitor, or a person that has offended the reviewer or their prejudices.

It is my opinion that there are far more serious negative effects of having that information, than there is positive reasons for having it. I do not want to know the name, address or license number of anyone that I review. I don't want anyone to be able to use the excuse that I was biased against them.

ONE MORE THING:
Most review orders that I've received in the past 2 or 3 years have been on appraisals with some degree of deficiency in reporting - at the very least. As a condition of accepting the review assignment, I insist that my identifying information be blacked out when passed on to the loan officer &/or appraiser. I do not need retaliation in the industry. Confidentiality is imperative to allow for free expression of the review. All correspondence regarding the report and the review should be handled by the client.


8)

 

[Farm Gal]

Gee Ruth:

You all actually get to see reviews done on your work? Lucky you!

I aould actually like to see one or two, if properly performed (my blood pressure doesn't need the other kind...) I would actually welcome an opinion as to my adequacy in reporting so that I could improve! Sure, I am mostly expecting alcolades...

I do not think I am perfect, and would like some feedback once in a while instead of working in the dark.

By the same token I surely wish some of the folks I review on regular occasion would see that someone has an opinion of what they have done (like ignored the seventeen resonable comps in the 3 blocks around the house and running three miles and calling it four blocks and and and....) and I don't particularly care if they know who said so... Though there is one competing office who I am sure feels the same about me.

ah well another problem with the industry.

 

[bradellis]

Folks, (especially George)

While I agree that the appraiser's name should not be blacked out, USPAP has, indeed changed.

George must have been quoting from an older version and what he cited was correct, back then. However, last year's and this year's version (I believe- and I'll check it) does NOT require identification of the appraiser.

I have the 2001 version right in front of me and it does not include ID for the appraiser.

Brad Ellis, IFA

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Brad

Georges quote from USPAP is current and as George noted in his first post, USPAP acknolwedges that the identity of the appraiser under review may be withheld.

George's point regarding this isssue is that if it is withheld, the review report should report that fact for clarity.

The remainder of Georges comments, ie, the second longer post, are his personal opinions regarding the pro and cons of a lender (or other client) withholding the appraisers identity.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[George Hatch]

Bradellis,

With respect, you know the part of my first post in this thread where I wrote:

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

The reason I identified it as coming from the 2002 edition is because I copied it from the 2002 edition, verbatim. Also, if you read the above quote, USPAP does not require the reviewer to identifiy the appraiser if the identity was withheld. So you and I apparently agree that USPAP does not always require the reviewer to be able to identify the appraiser.