Ross (CO)
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Colorado
Another classic and fast-paced volley from a very savvy group of peers. Started with a clash of semantics and terminology. The hitch was "requirements".
As I recall Marcia introduced two other key words to ease the moment, by mentioning "instructions" and then "obligations".
Requirements = hard obligations
Instructions = soft obligations
.....and doesn't the appraiser determine, and state, the ultimate S.o.W. to create and maintain credible and meaningful results which are not misleading ?
Greg tossed in "after-order conditions" and I'm sure he meant "after-report" conditions, or else after-report stipulations. Which ever way....instructions and conditions and potential stipulations should be PRE-report discussions, and generally occur at the time of initial order and engagement. Why is it that the magnitude of hassles in our line of work are predominantly POST-report events ?.......and coming from folks who have failed miserably to clarify, or request, that we give consideration and focus to "doing this" or "including that" in the beginning as they DO NOT want to create ANY reason from which discussion might justify MORE fee. Although we now might be seeing increased consciousness about diligence and research and trend analysis one finds definite reluctance on the part of clients to acknowledge that fees are stagnant.
Then, there is the unnecessary piece of instruction as if the client KNOWS (?) that we WILL have to do it to provide a credible report or that our reconciliation for their MV opinion will thus be solidified or enhanced. And, now the appraiser's option is to decide whether to decline the assignment or to re-enage discussion to remove a non-sensical and/or unnecessary instruction. Example ?: Include cost approach when property is ancient, there are no recent land/lot sales anywhere in immediate market area, the intended use is NOT to support a purchase of the subject (as if substitution of an equally aged property will enter the borrower's decision process), and the only real reason it is requested is to fulfill the hazard insurance gambit ! There are times when the estimate of site value exceeds rationality, yet one works it out to the best of what the market can guide.
Doesn't S.o.W.R. occasioanlly enable an appraiser to trump a non-sensical instruction or "requirement" ? What if jumping off the roof of a 5-story building were the last instruction among 15 on one's appraisal order, and one was to do that within 1 hour of submitting the report ? If they phoned you 2 hours later, and you answered that phone call could you be slapped with a violation of the Standards ?
Agree with Ben V's practice of labeling top field of cover page (and once elsewhere) to show bold text regarding compliance to Fannie guidelines....so long as the client is requesting use of a new-form. I will always assume, even when we have been told that we can not assume, that use of a new-form just might one day find my report being inserted into a portfolio file destined for Fannie's vaults.
As I recall Marcia introduced two other key words to ease the moment, by mentioning "instructions" and then "obligations".
Requirements = hard obligations
Instructions = soft obligations
.....and doesn't the appraiser determine, and state, the ultimate S.o.W. to create and maintain credible and meaningful results which are not misleading ?
Greg tossed in "after-order conditions" and I'm sure he meant "after-report" conditions, or else after-report stipulations. Which ever way....instructions and conditions and potential stipulations should be PRE-report discussions, and generally occur at the time of initial order and engagement. Why is it that the magnitude of hassles in our line of work are predominantly POST-report events ?.......and coming from folks who have failed miserably to clarify, or request, that we give consideration and focus to "doing this" or "including that" in the beginning as they DO NOT want to create ANY reason from which discussion might justify MORE fee. Although we now might be seeing increased consciousness about diligence and research and trend analysis one finds definite reluctance on the part of clients to acknowledge that fees are stagnant.
Then, there is the unnecessary piece of instruction as if the client KNOWS (?) that we WILL have to do it to provide a credible report or that our reconciliation for their MV opinion will thus be solidified or enhanced. And, now the appraiser's option is to decide whether to decline the assignment or to re-enage discussion to remove a non-sensical and/or unnecessary instruction. Example ?: Include cost approach when property is ancient, there are no recent land/lot sales anywhere in immediate market area, the intended use is NOT to support a purchase of the subject (as if substitution of an equally aged property will enter the borrower's decision process), and the only real reason it is requested is to fulfill the hazard insurance gambit ! There are times when the estimate of site value exceeds rationality, yet one works it out to the best of what the market can guide.
Doesn't S.o.W.R. occasioanlly enable an appraiser to trump a non-sensical instruction or "requirement" ? What if jumping off the roof of a 5-story building were the last instruction among 15 on one's appraisal order, and one was to do that within 1 hour of submitting the report ? If they phoned you 2 hours later, and you answered that phone call could you be slapped with a violation of the Standards ?
Agree with Ben V's practice of labeling top field of cover page (and once elsewhere) to show bold text regarding compliance to Fannie guidelines....so long as the client is requesting use of a new-form. I will always assume, even when we have been told that we can not assume, that use of a new-form just might one day find my report being inserted into a portfolio file destined for Fannie's vaults.
