Revision Request

[Meandering]

What part of "make or support"

Does anyone believe survives into the past tense,

When attempts at influence are not allowed?

.

 

[Meandering]

There is no provision for re-make.

You have pertinent information, you are supposed to present that at the time of the appraiser to consider.

There is no requirement under the TILA for an appraiser to write ANYTHING about ANY additional information,

only that the appraiser can BE ASKED TO CONSIDER it.




.

 

[Meandering]

Dear Appraiser

Here is some property data we are asking you to consider in your making and supporting of your appraisal.

We have no right to coheres you into a new independent judgement, after we read your opinions, written into your appraisal.

.

 

[djd09]

They want the cake made special for them. And they are too cheap to buy a new one when the old one is garbage.

 

[DWiley]

There is no provision for re-make.

You have pertinent information, you are supposed to present that at the time of the appraiser to consider.

There is no requirement under the TILA for an appraiser to write ANYTHING about ANY additional information,

only that the appraiser can BE ASKED TO CONSIDER it.




.

That is quite correct. And that is why so many lenders and AMCs include a requirement to respond in their contracts and/or LOEs. As I said before, it should be worked out on the front end, not debated on the back end.

 

[residentialguy]

(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;

These must be appropriate comparables, not higher priced sales sent over for their higher price point to target a value, otherwise the lender is in violation where they are ‘(3) seeking to influence an appraiser or otherwise to encourage a targeted value in order to facilitate the making or pricing of the transaction;

 

[Meandering]

That is quite correct. And that is why so many lenders and AMCs include a requirement to respond in their contracts and/or LOEs. As I said before, it should be worked out on the front end, not debated on the back end.

NOTICE TO THE CLIENT, INTENDED USERS AND OTHER READERS OF THE REPORT.
At the time of setting the property visit appointment of the appraiser, both the listing and selling agents were asked to provide their CMAs and any additional data the buyers and sellers would like the appraiser to consider. No CMAs or additional data were provided to the appraiser prior to the issuance of this report. No further data will be considered upon or after delivery of this report unless a bonafide error is found within the report. All other attempts to change or "update" the report will be considered as violations of the Truth in Lending Act and will be reported to all possible enforcing authorities.

AS is, as of the day.


.

 

[DWiley]

N All other attempts to change or "update" the report will be considered as violations of the Truth in Lending Act and will be reported to all possible enforcing authorities.

AS is, as of the day.


.

Got it. So, if someone asks you to consider alternative sales data, which is specifically allowed in TILA, you are going to claim a TILA violation. Who could possibly argue with logic like that?

 

[ucbruin]

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?

"...consider additional property information, including information regarding comparable properties."

Could one interpret the above as meaning appraisers can be asked to consider additional information regarding the subject and only the comparable properties employed in the report?

Example:
Subject has 2 car garage and comp 1 photo shows 2 car garage but the sales grid mistakenly indicate 1 car garage or subject is rated C3 and comp 2 is rated C4 and lender is questioning C ratings?

Rather than implying additional new sales, this section is referring only to the subject and to sales employed in the report....

That is quite correct. And that is why so many lenders and AMCs include a requirement to respond in their contracts and/or LOEs. As I said before, it should be worked out on the front end, not debated on the back end.

I agree with you that the contracts and LOE include language which covers the requirement for the appraiser to respond to ROV....
But why would that need to be done, if that requirement is already part of the overall general appraisal process?

 

[George Hatch]

How often do appraisers receive ROVs from anyone other than the Client? The "origin" of that material and that question notwithstanding, if the Client has sent the ROV then the appraiser didn't get that ROV from anyone outside of the appraiser/client relationship.


Some of you seem to be having a tough time understanding that the lenders have clients to whom they need to be responsive as well - we call them borrowers. Not only do the borrowers have a legitimate interest for how the loan itself goes, but the lenders have a legitimate interest toward their customers. Like it or not, if it's a legitimate interest then it deserves a little respect on the basis of being a legitimate interest.

It's not all about us.