Senate discussion of 2452 today.

[Pittsburgh Pete]

....and you are not......look at S2452--------Title IV--Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Appraisals----Section 401. Duties of Appraisers.----Sec.129C. Duties of Appraisers....(2) QUALIFYING BOND-The term "qualifying bond" means a bond equal to not less than 1 per cent of the aggregate value of all homes appraised by an appraiser of real property in connection with a home mortgage loan.....(A) the bond shall inure first to the benefit of the homeowners who have claims under this title...

There is more, but too much to type.....so Pittsburg Pete,a pair of less "giggles" is in order?....rs

The S2452 discussed yesterday did not have the bond requirement in it. I suspect you are looking at the original dated December 2007. I'll skip the giggles this time.

 

[Michigan CG]

....looks like conversation this evening with no votes tomorrow or Monday......COULD be Tuesday morning......looks like decision before Friday of next week.....the important appraiser parts are by my current understandings;

1) "...a written appraisal of the property to be mortgaged, This includes purchases and refi's?


2) "...performed by a qualified appraiser who conducts a physical property visit of the interior of the mortgaged property.", This would mean no AVMs for reifis?

3) "...qualified appriaiser defined...is certified or licensed by the State in which the property to be appraised is located..", Again, this would mean no AVM for a refi?

4) "...a creditor found to have willfully failed to obtain an appraisal as required....shall be liable to the consumer for the sum of $2000.", So a MB/LO who tries to get aq comp check without an appraisal is going to pay $2,000? The death of the Comp Check????

5) "...failing to timely compensate an appraiser for a completed appraisal regardless of whether the transaction closes.",

6) "...asking an appraiser to provide 1 or more of the following services: ...provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser's value conclusion.",

7) "...each person who violates this section shall forfeit and pay a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each day such violation continues.",

8) "...Threshold Levels..and that such threshold level provides reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-4 unit single-family residences.",

and 9) "....Mandatory reporting.-Any mortgage lender, mortgage banker, real estate broker, or any other person with and interest in a real estate transaction...believe an appraiser is violating applicable laws...".........interesting???.........best to all.........rs

Death of the AVM and the Comp Check? Am I reading this right?

 

[rcsone]

...yes, Mr. Evans........as I read what is printed..........and I still say bonding is in......but leave a comp check as collateral for my opinion.....the bill I am reading is posted as Senate Bill 2452 read and copied yesterday June 21st, 2008......several of these "bills" have been combined, but Title IV which deals primarily with appraisals has remained the same in both the House and Senate bills under the new all incomposing Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008.....the titles from House and Senate and the resulting numbers for entity to entity are confusing, but such is is....
best to all............rs

 

[Marcia Langley]

rcsone,

You are looking at the current bill, alright.

Versions of "appraisal bonding" clauses were in more than one bill in both houses beginning right at a year ago including s.1299 and hr.3915. It was taken out of everything else except s.2452.

HR.3915 passed the house without the bonding piece and is now in the senate.

But S.2452 still has bonding in it and is still in committee, or was until this week when the senate planned to discuss it on the floor.

The AI is asking for appraisers to support HR.3915 and to express objections for S.2452 because it still contains appraisal bonding. The senate now has both of those bills and can do one of four things:

1. Ratify HR.3915 that is already passed in the house and send it on to the president and drop the senate bill S.2452.

2. Drop HR.3915 and send S.2452 (either exact or revised) to the house.

3. Combine aspects of both bills and send that back to the house.

4. Drop everything.

Appraisers need to be pressing senators to support the house bill and reject the senate bill over this bonding issue.

==============

Pete,

Yes bonding had been removed from some bills, just not S.2452.

 

[Elliott]

Kill the bill. Safe to say we are in the lame duck stage of the
110th Congress. But they'll be back.

I also don't understand why Dodd doesn't ever support his
position on 'bonding', only that he wants it to come about
via the backroom deal.

 

[James R]

6) "...asking an appraiser to provide 1 or more of the following services: ...provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser's value conclusion

So this means no more asking for additional comps or active listings?

or am I not reading that right?

 

[Marcia Langley]

HR.3915 has lots of really good stuff in it that supports appraiser independence, and no bonding.

The only "primary source" for the content, amendments, and status of these bills are the senate website and the house of rep. web site.

Appraisers who want true information should go there and read the bills in their entirity plus any amendments. That's the straight scoop and very, very easy to find on line.

 

[Mystery man3]

Bonding might clean up the system

With a bond an appraiser would be less likely to cheat if he had a bond of his own money he would lose if he got caught cheating. Why are you guys opposed? It would make are licenses more valuable.

 

[rcsone]

James R.
The part you are quoting is referring to relates to "....person with an interest in a real estate transaction from asking an appraiser to provide...", but this service is required AFTER the appraisal has been completed from the appraiser.......see it as an aggravation, but I will probably handle it just like I do the VA 48 hour notice as a"... a request for additional information". This says without any figures or information that a under contract sales price was reached and gives the Point of Contact that time to furnish comp info for consideration before final transmission to VA. This is the only "hassle" written into the bill(s) as I see it currently. BUT would I trade such bother for the removal of "de minimus" for potential and real business----YES- YES- YES. And I THINK this will happen as a result of this bill....best to all.....rs

 

[rcsone]

....and I agree with bonding........ just like I agee with initial and continuing educational quality, legitimate reviewed work criteria, prompt payment, qualifying experience requirements, and improper or repeated "error" punishments in the severe.......best to all......rs