Fellow forumites
You are right, we have had this type of ability to address scope for years, our standards folks are just now getting the document to reflect what many have been doing. We should be tipping our hats to these guys for getting it right.
The real problem that is going to reach out and bite appraisers is that many appraisers still maintain that the written report is the appraisal, and that "one size fits all".
Why should we fear this? Because the appraiser who does not get the concepts is going to go around saying those who do less work, or reported less, is a crook, a fraud and a bad appraiser. These same people are screaming to regulators to get rid of the bad guys, and for those boards who are witchunting, they are going to aggressively prosecute.
This is exactly what happened in my case. I had an exhaustive analysis on a very complex case, I had an exhaustive workfile with extensive documentation. My client, an exceptionally knowledgeable condemnation attorney) and I discussed during the analysis many of the contested legal issues (scope of project/blight/wetlands). Since my attorney told me he only wanted the report to decide whether to tender me as an expert, I prepared a very basic summary report addressing only these issues in summary fashion. The scope of work was fully addressed but the reporting of the analysis was minimal. This met my clients needs, he decided to have me testify, and I was able to adequately address all issues at depostions and at the trial jsut as my client and I expected. In short, I met the standards requirements.
But the person who turned me in only read the report, he was not an intended user, and understandably, he did not understand the report. USPAP says this is OK, but ... since this guy and his minions could use their prestige, they could get the NCAB to prosecute.
You see, the NCAB does not understand USPAP. The NCAB treated the matter at the hearing as if the work file did not matter, that the only thing that mattered was the report. They argued loudly that the report was misleading because they did not understand the report on a standalone basis. They argued that if an item was not fully explained in the report, it was therefore was misleading to the judge and jury, even though the judge an jury were not intended users and in fact never saw the report. The NCAB certainly did not understand scope issues, particularly as they relate to the reporting requirements. They argued that the deputy director had only to review the written report to make an informed decision regarding all developmental issues.
My case proves my worse fears.
Regulatory boards do not want such flexibility as the ASB is teaching. They want to be able to prosecute. They actually want very rigorous standards spelled out with specificity. Reread Sam Blackburns remarks in his letter to the political forum (Get Right or Get Out). He wants all issues spelled out, he does not want nebulous scope of work issues confusing the issues. He and his ilk know who the bad appraisers are, and they want to be able to prosecute.
These kind of regulators (and appraisers) do want to be able to point to the standard and say you are wrong. They do not want to have to provide any convincing arguments. They wish to literally read the standard and say you are wrong. Regulators want "one size fits all".
I look for the regulators to work very hard over the next several years to minimize the impact of these changes. We can already see part of their strategy. one is the idea "Lets get rid of federal oversight, lets let the states establish the own rules. Lets let them right intotheir adminsitrative law very rigorous interpretations of what good and bad appraising is."
I commend the insight of the ASB, but I fear that the self serving indignation of many appraisers ("lets get rid of the bad appraisers") is going to play in favor of the these boards who are incapable of prosecuting their cases with intellectuial or acedemic rigor.
Regards
Tom Hildebrandt GAA
