Should I turn this in?

[residentialguy]

And as others have pointed out, although it is not a direct USPAP violation, it is in and of itself as it is contradictory of the SOW statement on the 2055, which is a USPAP violation.

I don't know of any appraiser that took a form requested by the client to do in a particular way not in sync with all of the form, such as "don't inspect" ...made it clear that he didn't inspect, per client orders...and got into trouble because of the pre-printed form language?? How many 1004s have been done for personal use, yet the pre-printed says that it is for lending purposes only??? Or post disaster reports on a 1004D???

I'm wondering if we're making an issue out of a non-issue.

 

[Michigan CG]

........Call the guy up, let him know that there is a pre-printed SOW on the form. Move on in life.

A PROFESSIONAL appraiser who knows what they are doing would know the verbiage of the preprinted material they are SIGNING.

.......How many 1004s have been done for personal use, yet the pre-printed says that it is for lending purposes only???......

How many appraisers do things they shouldn't because they aren't really professionals? Why would an appraiser do private party work on a 1004 when they SHOULD know what those certifications state?

 

[Stone]

Nope, no agenda. I'm just sick of shoddy work and appraisers taking short cuts, while those of us trying to stay on the straight and narrow get the short end of the stick.
I don't know this guy, have never heard of him. This is why I posed the question here, to my peers, to see what they thought of someone who would do this. And quite frankly, I'm surprised by the opinions, especially after a couple of other recent threads I've read here on similar topics.

But thanks to a couple of you for reminding me why I've avoided this place for so long. Nothing changes. No one can ask a question here without being berated or having their competency called into question.

It isn't "shoddy work" or "short cuts" if the client agrees to the SOW. I think a heads up to the appraiser regarding the pre-printed scope is a great idea, but it does sound like the appraiser made it clear what he did. This is not the same as someone who signs a report with the pre-printed scope and does not admit that he didn't view the sales (or the subject, or...). Should the appraiser use GSE forms and alter the scope by simply discussing it elsewhere? in my opinion, no. The appraiser should use other forms. But, I don't think this should be an issue that is sent to the board.

I do not understand why people post questions here and then get all hot and bothered by the answers when they apparently aren't what was hoped for in the OP. One would have to be pretty thin-skinned to get all worked up over the replies in this thread. They were generally tame and helpful, IMO.

 

[Stone]

A PROFESSIONAL appraiser who knows what they are doing would know the verbiage of the preprinted material they are SIGNING.



How many appraisers do things they shouldn't because they aren't really professionals? Why would an appraiser do private party work on a 1004 when they SHOULD know what those certifications state?

I agree with you as a general concept, but it does sound like the appraiser at least was honest and didn't try and do anything wrong. Letting him know is a good idea but I hardly think it is something that should be turned into a huge deal.

 

[Michigan CG]

.....but it does sound like the appraiser at least was honest and didn't try and do anything wrong....

I agree with this. I am just tired of idiots doing work they shouldn't and then some making excuses for incompetence. None of us know everything. The OP obviously knows the certifications and the required SOW. The person who wrote the report was being honest (even though he/she is technically violating USPAP). The people who jumped on the OP see no problem.....that is the problem I have.

We wonder why the profession has little respect.

 

[residentialguy]

A PROFESSIONAL appraiser who knows what they are doing would know the verbiage of the preprinted material they are SIGNING.

How many appraisers do things they shouldn't because they aren't really professionals? Why would an appraiser do private party work on a 1004 when they SHOULD know what those certifications state?

You are assuming too much with way too broad of a brush. I understand what the pre-printed says, but if the client wants it on that form for their own use, who is the appraiser going to get in trouble with if they state the clients request and make it clear as to the actual SOW performed and that a, b, c on the pre-printed form has been changed?

You act like the pre-printed verbiage on the form is a law passed by congress.

 

[Stone]

I agree with this. I am just tired of idiots doing work they shouldn't and then some making excuses for incompetence. None of us know everything. The OP obviously knows the certifications and the required SOW. The person who wrote the report was being honest (even though he/she is technically violating USPAP). The people who jumped on the OP see no problem.....that is the problem I have.

We wonder why the profession has little respect.

Again, I agree that it was the wrong form to use, but like Res. Guy I don't see it as that big a deal so long as the appraiser is very clear about what he actually did based on the SOW agreed upon with the client. I would have found a way to delete the pre-printed certs or I would have used a different form, but it just doesn't sound like that big a deal.

As to people jumping on the OP, I just don't see it. People responded to this comment from the OP:

Sure you can catch "mistakes" like St. vs. Street, but a major USPAP violation?

It seems that most people realize the issue but don't feel it rises to the level of "a major USPAP violation". Or, at least shouldn't. There are much bigger things to go after than someone using the "wrong" form but making sure the actual SOW is carefully discussed in the report. As the OP noted:

SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT.

I thought most posters just gave straight-forward responses instead of jumping on anyone.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Nope, no agenda. I'm just sick of shoddy work and appraisers taking short cuts, while those of us trying to stay on the straight and narrow get the short end of the stick.
I don't know this guy, have never heard of him. This is why I posed the question here, to my peers, to see what they thought of someone who would do this. And quite frankly, I'm surprised by the opinions, especially after a couple of other recent threads I've read here on similar topics.

But thanks to a couple of you for reminding me why I've avoided this place for so long. Nothing changes. No one can ask a question here without being berated or having their competency called into question.

You did a bit more than ask a question Mr. Thin-skin. I love your post #3 where you are "certain" of what USPAP states! Don't be so dang arrogant and smug and the reaction to your posts might be a bit different.

Basic problem with the appraisal that you didn't review (?) is that too many form fillers fail to read the form they use. What the appraiser did contradicted the pre-printed certifications. Sounds to me, however, like he tried to cover himself with his SOW. Did he commit a boo boo by including the pre-printed certs that contradicted what he did? Yes? Major USPAP violation? I think not1

Lighten up Frances.

 

[Mark K]

The people who jumped on the OP see no problem.....that is the problem I have.

We wonder why the profession has little respect.

Wow, I guess the more "professional" appraisers are able to read things that don't exist.

NOBODY said they didn't see a problem. Most of us are saying that this error, by itself, does not rise to the level of transgression worthy of being reported to the state, at least not by a reasonable reviewer, or non-reviewer, as the case may be.

 

[bradelyd]

Welcome to the forum, everytime I have made a comment I get slammed by people that don't have anything else to do but make comments on this forum. In general if I have a question, most have been helpfull but like life, there are always the ones that are the offenders.