Ray Miller
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2002
- Professional Status
- Licensed Appraiser
- State
- Wisconsin
Three days of Hearings
Please understand that these are my feelings and the way I see that things went.
Before I get started let me say I know that the state and federal agencies monitor this forum and pull postings and data from the form as evidence by the State of Wisconsin Jr. Attorney General entering one of my posting as an exhibit in my hearing yesterday. I will always stand behind what I post, unless I learn that I was incorrect. I am by no means perfect, but I do have the where with all to post using my real name and stand behind what I post. I have a great fear of government and those people who work for government who are afraid to let their real names be known.
I just finished up three days of hearings again on the original complaints that were filed against me several years ago. Yes, I have admitted that there were some mistakes in my reports, but none affected the finial conclusion of value of the subject property.
The State of Wisconsin had four new expert witnesses one for each of the reports. I Have no clue as to why they chose new experts over the original experts they had in the first hearing. However that in many, many cases and items in the reports the new experts disagreed with the original expert’s conclusions. So we had to answer a whole new set of questions about the reports. So we have two sets of experts disagreeing with each other over what is wrong with the reports.
I am going to post some things that I gather from the three days and the the state experts said and attested too. Also how their reviews were conducted.
I would very much like your input on this matter for some reasons of my own as it will help me make some decision to proceed in this matter.
So here goes.
One out of the four reports was the finial version of the report that was sent to the lender, the other three were not the final corrected report that were reviewed. So three of the reviewers never reviewed the finial report the lender received nor were they presented by the state to the court.
This is what I felt was said and the way I interpreted things.
1. The finial conclusion was an issue in one of the reports only and that reviewer did not provide any support for his value other then the fact there were a number of sales that could have been used for comparables even though they were not A-Frames.
2. That it makes no difference if an error or errors are found regardless of the magnitude of the error (minor to major) and you are contactdc by the receipt of the report about the problems and submit a corrected report. You are still labial for prosecution because you sent out a report with errors in it. The state can take the interim or first report and act on it. By the way the value was the same on all the corrected reports as it was on the first one received.
3. That a reviewer can present their conclusion of the report with out any statements, supporting documents or reasons in the report to support why they reach the conclusions they did. Except for the fact it violated such and such a provision of USPAP.
4. An expert reviewer can review your report under the wrong standards of USPAP. In other words one of my reports should have been reviewed under the 2005 USPAP and the reviewer used 2006 and gave three hours of testimony using the 2006 USPAP. Should his testimony stand, should I file a complaint?
5. The state attacked my geographic competency in the area I covered because it was a large rural area that I specialized in. Regardless of the number of data bases I have and the way I collect and keep data. it is a voliation of USPAP.
6. That you are limited in the number of appraisal you do. That if the expert only does 200 to 300 reports a year and has superior license and schooling. You should do a substantial less number of appraisals then the four or five hundred you may have done for the simple fact that it should take you longer to complete the report because of your education and license level.
7. That you can not have a signature line that says: Miller Land & Livestock, Co. AP. Lic # xxxx-zzz. That the words Appraiser License must be spelled out.
8. That a reviewer can state that the form was incorrect that I used, because he felt that the subject was a single family attached duplex. That because the legal description did not have the words condo in it. It should not be done on a condo form. We proved that the subject had a 0 lot line conversion in place, was being change from a rental development in to condo ownership, had been listed and sold as a condo twice before I did the appraisal on it. That I should not have used condo comparables but single family home or multi unit homes. We presented these documents into evidence and the record. That this reviewer failed to research the data on the subject and in my appraisal. The reviewer presented nothing to support his claims it was single family attached.
9. It is against USPAP and the LAW to use MLS photos in an appraisal report. This was presented by one of the reviewers. The same one that used the wrong USPAP Standard for review.
10. The reviewer sited you must site the source of your market value even if you use the preprinted Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac forms. You must site a source if not, you have violated USPAP.
11. One reviewer stated you must used comparable in the township if there are a large number of sale, regardless if they are like the subject in design or not. Case in point there was 30 plus sale in this area of ranch type homes with the similar GLA as the subject. However the subject was an A Frame and I went 6 miles and up to find A Frame comparables. I had a total of 5 A-Frames as comparables. He stated I should have use ranch type homes. Because for the simple fact there were no A-Frame sales nearer in the small rural town. This violated USPAP by going a greater distance to find them.
12. One of the reviewers said it is against the LAW and a violation of USPAP if you do not use the Cost Approach in your reports. It is also against the LAW and USPAP if at a later date you add the Cost Approach at the request of the lender and charge for the work, because it should have been include from the start.
13. One of the reviewers the same one above in 12 did a review of my report that was multi parcel and showed that in the report by the legal and title documents. Only the reviewer based his review on one of the parcels and faulted my report because I used the entire 4.5 acres two parcels that I was placing a value on and not just the 1.5 acres that the home sit on. He never once mentions the additional parcel or the additional acreage in his review of my work. That I was in violation of USPAP for using the 4.5 acres. The reviewer I must assume had a copy of my appraisal and the state had a copy of the order showing a request for the 4.5 acres and they had the data from the county or he could have obtain the datat from the county. Should a complaint be filed because he failed to research the subject and only reviewed using the 1.5 acres.
14. The invoice is again part of the work file and should be included as to what rates you charge your clients in a request for your work file. Again the number of hours I worked entered into the picture as well.
. Here is the kicker, the AG stop the proceedings and ask to amend the complaint near the end of my redirect yesterday after more then 2 ½ days, where I made the statement that in 2005 into early 2007, I had a staff that typed part of my reports, help me to gather data of sales, rents in the area I cover, in addition to information on the subject property such as legal, flood plane data and such. That if I did not included each and every ones name that help gather that data and any that help type any part of the report. I was in violation of USPAP. The judge did not allow him to amend the complaint, but it was my under standing he was going to protest the judges ruling and file additional complaints on all my reports for not having that in the report. I in open court and on the record, state that if the AG amended the complaint to include this and or filed new complaints, I would file a blanket complaint on all appraisers in Wisconsin who had and office and staff that helped in preparing appraisal reports. How would you have handled this statement from the AG?
There were many more things that each of the reviews brought up that they said were violations of USPAP that should not even enter into USPAP, but they were represent too by the reviewers.
There were many other things in the hearings that were presented and my attorney did a an excellent job of countering and asking where in USPAP did that apply. Most of the time they could not answer where in USPAP it was.
I felt that not one of the reviewers fully reviewed my work, researched the subject and presented a creditable review considering all the errors that we were able to present to the court in their reviews.
What do you think.
Please understand that these are my feelings and the way I see that things went.
Before I get started let me say I know that the state and federal agencies monitor this forum and pull postings and data from the form as evidence by the State of Wisconsin Jr. Attorney General entering one of my posting as an exhibit in my hearing yesterday. I will always stand behind what I post, unless I learn that I was incorrect. I am by no means perfect, but I do have the where with all to post using my real name and stand behind what I post. I have a great fear of government and those people who work for government who are afraid to let their real names be known.
I just finished up three days of hearings again on the original complaints that were filed against me several years ago. Yes, I have admitted that there were some mistakes in my reports, but none affected the finial conclusion of value of the subject property.
The State of Wisconsin had four new expert witnesses one for each of the reports. I Have no clue as to why they chose new experts over the original experts they had in the first hearing. However that in many, many cases and items in the reports the new experts disagreed with the original expert’s conclusions. So we had to answer a whole new set of questions about the reports. So we have two sets of experts disagreeing with each other over what is wrong with the reports.
I am going to post some things that I gather from the three days and the the state experts said and attested too. Also how their reviews were conducted.
I would very much like your input on this matter for some reasons of my own as it will help me make some decision to proceed in this matter.
So here goes.
One out of the four reports was the finial version of the report that was sent to the lender, the other three were not the final corrected report that were reviewed. So three of the reviewers never reviewed the finial report the lender received nor were they presented by the state to the court.
This is what I felt was said and the way I interpreted things.
1. The finial conclusion was an issue in one of the reports only and that reviewer did not provide any support for his value other then the fact there were a number of sales that could have been used for comparables even though they were not A-Frames.
2. That it makes no difference if an error or errors are found regardless of the magnitude of the error (minor to major) and you are contactdc by the receipt of the report about the problems and submit a corrected report. You are still labial for prosecution because you sent out a report with errors in it. The state can take the interim or first report and act on it. By the way the value was the same on all the corrected reports as it was on the first one received.
3. That a reviewer can present their conclusion of the report with out any statements, supporting documents or reasons in the report to support why they reach the conclusions they did. Except for the fact it violated such and such a provision of USPAP.
4. An expert reviewer can review your report under the wrong standards of USPAP. In other words one of my reports should have been reviewed under the 2005 USPAP and the reviewer used 2006 and gave three hours of testimony using the 2006 USPAP. Should his testimony stand, should I file a complaint?
5. The state attacked my geographic competency in the area I covered because it was a large rural area that I specialized in. Regardless of the number of data bases I have and the way I collect and keep data. it is a voliation of USPAP.
6. That you are limited in the number of appraisal you do. That if the expert only does 200 to 300 reports a year and has superior license and schooling. You should do a substantial less number of appraisals then the four or five hundred you may have done for the simple fact that it should take you longer to complete the report because of your education and license level.
7. That you can not have a signature line that says: Miller Land & Livestock, Co. AP. Lic # xxxx-zzz. That the words Appraiser License must be spelled out.
8. That a reviewer can state that the form was incorrect that I used, because he felt that the subject was a single family attached duplex. That because the legal description did not have the words condo in it. It should not be done on a condo form. We proved that the subject had a 0 lot line conversion in place, was being change from a rental development in to condo ownership, had been listed and sold as a condo twice before I did the appraisal on it. That I should not have used condo comparables but single family home or multi unit homes. We presented these documents into evidence and the record. That this reviewer failed to research the data on the subject and in my appraisal. The reviewer presented nothing to support his claims it was single family attached.
9. It is against USPAP and the LAW to use MLS photos in an appraisal report. This was presented by one of the reviewers. The same one that used the wrong USPAP Standard for review.
10. The reviewer sited you must site the source of your market value even if you use the preprinted Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac forms. You must site a source if not, you have violated USPAP.
11. One reviewer stated you must used comparable in the township if there are a large number of sale, regardless if they are like the subject in design or not. Case in point there was 30 plus sale in this area of ranch type homes with the similar GLA as the subject. However the subject was an A Frame and I went 6 miles and up to find A Frame comparables. I had a total of 5 A-Frames as comparables. He stated I should have use ranch type homes. Because for the simple fact there were no A-Frame sales nearer in the small rural town. This violated USPAP by going a greater distance to find them.
12. One of the reviewers said it is against the LAW and a violation of USPAP if you do not use the Cost Approach in your reports. It is also against the LAW and USPAP if at a later date you add the Cost Approach at the request of the lender and charge for the work, because it should have been include from the start.
13. One of the reviewers the same one above in 12 did a review of my report that was multi parcel and showed that in the report by the legal and title documents. Only the reviewer based his review on one of the parcels and faulted my report because I used the entire 4.5 acres two parcels that I was placing a value on and not just the 1.5 acres that the home sit on. He never once mentions the additional parcel or the additional acreage in his review of my work. That I was in violation of USPAP for using the 4.5 acres. The reviewer I must assume had a copy of my appraisal and the state had a copy of the order showing a request for the 4.5 acres and they had the data from the county or he could have obtain the datat from the county. Should a complaint be filed because he failed to research the subject and only reviewed using the 1.5 acres.
14. The invoice is again part of the work file and should be included as to what rates you charge your clients in a request for your work file. Again the number of hours I worked entered into the picture as well.
. Here is the kicker, the AG stop the proceedings and ask to amend the complaint near the end of my redirect yesterday after more then 2 ½ days, where I made the statement that in 2005 into early 2007, I had a staff that typed part of my reports, help me to gather data of sales, rents in the area I cover, in addition to information on the subject property such as legal, flood plane data and such. That if I did not included each and every ones name that help gather that data and any that help type any part of the report. I was in violation of USPAP. The judge did not allow him to amend the complaint, but it was my under standing he was going to protest the judges ruling and file additional complaints on all my reports for not having that in the report. I in open court and on the record, state that if the AG amended the complaint to include this and or filed new complaints, I would file a blanket complaint on all appraisers in Wisconsin who had and office and staff that helped in preparing appraisal reports. How would you have handled this statement from the AG?
There were many more things that each of the reviews brought up that they said were violations of USPAP that should not even enter into USPAP, but they were represent too by the reviewers.
There were many other things in the hearings that were presented and my attorney did a an excellent job of countering and asking where in USPAP did that apply. Most of the time they could not answer where in USPAP it was.
I felt that not one of the reviewers fully reviewed my work, researched the subject and presented a creditable review considering all the errors that we were able to present to the court in their reviews.
What do you think.
Last edited:
