• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Reviewers DO have power .

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ultraviolet

Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Professional Status
Retired Appraiser
State
Arizona
This is a pretty interesting read - minutes from the November AZ Board meeting. Scroll down to the Miller case and see the back and forth between the board's reviewer and the appraiser. Completing a half *ssed CA can come back to bite - hard! The old "hypothetical 5 acres" even rears its ugly head ...

http://www.appraisal.state.az.us/userfiles/file/1108 Minutes WEB.pdf
 

Lawrence R.

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
South Carolina
I was impressed with how much work your board actually got done in one meeting.

I was also surprised that the overall number of appraisers has gone up by 176 since 2006. I would have thought that number would be lower, or even negative.

As for the review/reviewer...I was glad to see a thorough review was done. I was a little sad to see that when certain subjective adjustments were disputed, the reviewer did not give her opinion as to what they should have been...but rather that the other guys' were wrong.

I think that may be a bit misleading in and of itself...I think that sometimes the board should just hang their hat on the serious issues.

In this case, what is more important? That the 2 appraisers obfuscated the prior listing history and seriously inflated the value, or that they used a defective method to determine physical depreciation in the cost approach?

Don't get me wrong, I know they were using the cost approach to lend weight to the findings in the SCA, but technically, they could have left out the CA altogether and still had a fraudulent report.

Sort of a dogpile, and seems petty to me. Opinions will vary.
 

Sheikh Yerbouti

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
Arizona
Deleted because I fear the AZ Board of Appraisal.
 
Last edited:

Ultraviolet

Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Professional Status
Retired Appraiser
State
Arizona
The best part is under the hypothetical condition section. This is a direct quote from the transcript: Ms. Miller testified that since Ms. Beatty made such a big deal about it, she would disclose a hypothetical condition in future reports.

Gee if the reviewer reviewing the reviewer didn't make such a big deal about it I could ignore USPAP ... :rof:

I fear the AZ Board of Appraisal too, but I have to say that if I were in this person's shoes I would be keeping my mouth shut and accepting the light punishment. This person has been appraising for 22 years and has been certified since the beginning (1991). How and when to use a HC and the necessity for properly disclosing it is USPAP 101 that I (and every other appraiser who pays attention in class) have known since my training days.

Six months probation with a mentor is not a super harsh punishment, though in reality it will probably be difficult to keep any clients with the overabundance of available appraisers.

Ok, I'm waiting for my certified mail now, Dave ... :icon_mrgreen:
 

Sheikh Yerbouti

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
Arizona
Ok, I'm waiting for my certified mail now, Dave ... :icon_mrgreen:

Certified mail from the ABOA. The stuff of nightmares....

I agree with everything you said, UV. Clearly this appraiser screwed up, and the punishment is appropriate. I'm just troubled when they pile on, for the record, with stuff that is not correct or within their jurisdiction. If I got on the stand and testified that the assessor never includes basements in the GLA I would be destroyed on cross, and rightfully so. Also, this business about improper calculation of physical depreciation....where is it written in USPAP or anywhere else that straight line is the only appropriate method? Seems to me the board should have zeroed in on standard 2 violations. Not so much a question of appropriate appraisal methodology, but more a failure to explain. This board did the same thing to me back in '93, went after me on methodology, then realized halfway through my hearing that they should have charged me with Standard 2 violations instead of Standard 1. Nothing wrong with my methology, I just did a lousy job of explaining myself.

As an aside, I don't know why anyone in this state would agree to be a mentor to one of these offenders; I've known too many people who agreed to mentor someone and ended up in front of the board themselves. I did mentor someone in Colorado, and that worked out just fine.
 

Michigan CG

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
Michigan
......As an aside, I don't know why anyone in this state would agree to be a mentor to one of these offenders; ..........

I would assume that these mentors would not do this for free. Charge them $100 report to look them over....torture them to make the report correct. You make $100 and the appraiser (she said she did all AMC work) gets $50 per report.

.........I have to say that if I were in this person's shoes I would be keeping my mouth shut and accepting the light punishment............

Shows the arrogance of the appraiser.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Top

AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks