Revision Request

[Meandering]

LOL. Have you read those updates? The IFR contains the same AIR provisions, including the part about asking an appraiser to consider alternative sales data.

Follow your own advice and read it all, not just what (you think) makes your point

Anyone with Google can verify in a few minutes.

Yup,
Read them all,
and the TILA.

And I recognize that the TILA is the federal law, with both the appraiser and the AMC being "covered" persons.

 

[djd09]

Except it's the "covered person" AMC that is presenting the "attempted influence" to the appraiser.

Ghee,

and I seem to recall someone saying their AMC had Legal signed documents that appraisers must............

Love the paper trail, but shredders won't help when there are electronic email copies.

I see how they work it. Blame the borrower.

I don't think they have shedders.

 

[DWiley]

Yup,
Read them all,
and the TILA.

And I recognize that the TILA is the federal law, with both the appraiser and the AMC being "covered" persons.

Good. So you know that the IFR states,

42(c)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) TILA Section 129E(c)(1) provides that it is permissible under TILA Section 129E(b) to ask an appraiser to consider additional property information, including information regarding comparable properties.​

So, what is the beef?

 

[The Bob]

Danny,

I have to say it looks like Marion may be right on who can request the appraiser to consider other sales/data. Based on my reading, a "covered person" can make a request to consider other data. I don't think that applies to "anyone with an interest in the real estate"

“Covered person” means a creditor with respect to a covered transaction or a person that provides “settlement services,” as defined in 12 U.S.C. 2602(3) and implementing regulations, in connection with a covered transaction.

42(c)(1) Coercion

1. 
   STATE LAW.The terms “coercion,” “extortion,” “inducement,” “bribery,” “intimidation,” “compensation,” “instruction,” and “collusion” have the meanings given to them by applicable state law or contract. See § 1026.2(b)(3).
   
   
2. PURPOSE.A covered person does not violate § 1026.42(c)(1) if the person does not engage in an act or practice set forth in § 1026.42(c)(1) for the purpose of causing the value assigned to the consumer's principal dwelling to be based on a factor other than the independent judgment of a person that prepares valuations. For example, requesting that a person that prepares a valuation take certain actions, such as consider additional, appropriate property information, does not violate § 1026.42(c), because such request does not supplant the independent judgment of the person that prepares a valuation. See § 1026.42(c)(3)(i). A covered person also may provide incentives, such as additional compensation, to a person that prepares valuations or performs valuation management functions under § 1026.42(c)(1), as long as the covered person does not cause or attempt to cause the value assigned to the consumer's principal dwelling to be based on a factor other than the independent judgment of the person that prepares valuations.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ere...terp/2016-14782_20160627#1026-42-c-1-Interp-3

 

[hastalavista]

Jim-
The ROVs usually come from the lender (or its agent) who is a covered person.
Indeed, on this forum, when someone brings up a point about a borrower or real estate agent having a question on the report, the advice is typically, "Tell them to bring it up with the lender and the lender will decide if it should be passed on to the appraiser."

I don't think anyone has (and I hope no one would) completed an ROV for someone other than the client/lender or its agent in regard to a mortgage finance transaction.

 

[The Bob]

Yeah. I got that. I was taking about what danny posted from D-F. It made it sound like anyone with an interest could request the appraiser consider other data, including the seller, borrower and listing/selling agent.

 

[DWiley]

Yeah. I got that. I was taking about what danny posted from D-F. It made it sound like anyone with an interest could request the appraiser consider other data, including the seller, borrower and listing/selling agent.

As M, suggests, one has to read it all

Since she is so fond of the iFR, here is a direct quote from the IFR:

TILA Section 129E(c) provides that TILA Section 129E(b) shall not be construed as prohibiting a mortgage lender, mortgage broker, mortgage banker, real estate broker, appraisal management company, employee of an appraisal management company, consumer, or any other person with an interest in a real estate transaction from asking an appraiser to: (1) Consider additional, appropriate property information, including information regarding additional comparable properties to make or support an appraisal; (2) provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser’s value conclusion; or (3) correct errors in the appraisal report. 15 U.S.C. 1639e(c).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-28/pdf/2010-26671.pdf

Besides, as Denis pointed out, what does it matter? The borrower gives the alternate sales to the lender, who just forwards them to the appraiser (or asks the AMC to).

 

[Meandering]

As M, suggests, one has to read it all

Since she is so fond of the iFR, here is a direct quote from the IFR:

TILA Section 129E(c) provides that TILA Section 129E(b) shall not be construed as prohibiting a mortgage lender, mortgage broker, mortgage banker, real estate broker, appraisal management company, employee of an appraisal management company, consumer, or any other person with an interest in a real estate transaction from asking an appraiser to: (1) Consider additional, appropriate property information, including information regarding additional comparable properties to make or support an appraisal; (2) provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser’s value conclusion; or (3) correct errors in the appraisal report. 15 U.S.C. 1639e(c).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-28/pdf/2010-26671.pdf

Besides, as Denis pointed out, what does it matter? The borrower gives the alternate sales to the lender, who just forwards them to the appraiser (or asks the AMC to).

Still only reading the parts you like?

Did you scroll down to the part in the IFR that says it updated the TILA 1026.42 in 2010?

And did you read down to the part that says the cfpb maintains and can make changes to tho the 12 cfr?

So you're still back to quoting things from 2010 that have updated the current federal law which is

12 cfr 1026.42



can't get around it with old stuff that was updated.

 

[hastalavista]

Yeah. I got that. I was taking about what danny posted from D-F. It made it sound like anyone with an interest could request the appraiser consider other data, including the seller, borrower and listing/selling agent.

OK, I misunderstood.

Here's the other thing about the regulation:
First it says,

Thou shall not coerce the appraiser to influence his/her judgment........​

And gives examples (not all-inclusive, but certainly clear cut).

Then, it says,

Exceptions to the 'thou shall not' are these....​

One of those exceptions is additional data and it is permissible for the covered person to ask the appraiser to consider it as long as that request isn't "Consider it and conclude X because of the consideration".

So we have what cannot be done and then we have what can be done.
Here is the rule and here are scenarios that don't trigger a violation of the rule.

But, that's only my opinion based on what the document says. It is obvious there is disagreement.
How long has DF and the IFR been in place? How often do appraisers receive ROVs?
Assuming there is an honest disagreement about what the regulation says and is intended to achieve, what does it say when ROVs are not considered a violation by any regulator when they are submitted to an appraiser and the appraiser still relies on his/her independent judgment to consider them and determine if they move the needle?

I'm sure someone will retort, "it proves the fix is in against appraisers and in favor of the lender."
For those who truly believe that, there is no counter-argument short of accepting their point of view that is going to satisfy them.

 

[DWiley]

So you're still back to quoting things from 2010 that have updated the current federal law which is

12 cfr 1026.42

OK. Direct quote from 12 CFR 1026.42

(3) Permitted actions. Examples of actions that do not violate paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) include: (i) Asking a person that prepares a valuation to consider additional, appropriate property information, including information about comparable properties, to make or support a valuation;

Yeah, you are right. That is SOOOO much different.