United Wholesale Mortgage reports an appraiser to the state board for following USPAP.

[Trihard]

https://www.reddit.com/r/appraisal/comments/1kvjz75/is_uwm_right_to_file_a_complaint_with_the_state

 

[Elliott]

No. Looks like the appraiser and state got it right. 'Conversion' shouldn't involve appraisers. If UWM wanted an April report, it should have been a 'new' request.

 

[John Hassler]

Based on the OP, if I were still at the state, I would have had the investigator call UWM and ask what violation of law/USPAP do they believe was violated. Educating complainants is part of the job when you work for the state. Most likely the complaint would have been closed without even informing the appraiser.

 

[Mejappz]

Just give the precious users whatever they want. It’s a joke how this industry has turned out. The same users who are considered “partners” with TAF are often the ones who will throw you under the bus in an instant. We need to eliminate USPAP for secondary and FHA work and simply provide them with what the users and clients want, which is a rubber stamp.

 

[John Hassler]

With that said, there are two sides to every story so I’m only taking the info by the OP at face value.

 

[glenn walker]

My guess is more to the story. Unfortunately in almost every case seen on forum's including this one, as more questions get asked, the stories get more detailed. I've never worked with any lender that would file a USPAP complaint over this or send to a State Board to punish over this.

** A few thoughts come to mind, minor but, wouldn't disclosing prior service be required ? And new signature date ? Not both signed as effective date ?

 

[PushinValue]

In the past I have completed a “new report” without inspecting the subject again if the client keeps the effective date same as previous report….

According to mckissok USPAP this class this does NOT comply with USPAP. There were multiple questions about “if you have already inspected a and completed an appraisal on a property and were later engaged to complete another appraisal with an effective prior to the previous appraisal, you may not indicate you personally inspected, because a personal inspection did not occur as part of the new scope of work.

An inspection occurred as part of the previous scope of work.

It was fairly interesting, and I am 100% sure I did not misunderstand the question because the same question was asked multiple times in different wording.

Seems like a strange thing to have as part of a USPAP class

 

[JTip]

In the past I have completed a “new report” without inspecting the subject again if the client keeps the effective date same as previous report….

So the client orders a 'new report' and you time travel to the past (using your old photos) and use the old (time travel) effective date with a signature date today.

That's a textbook 'retrospective appraisal' because you traveled back in time, one day or one thousand days.

Then you check the box [x] I have NOT inspected the subject property, because you can't travel back in time.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Eh, if I'm reading the post correctly I wouldn't have "converted" a completed report considering the new intended user and use. Not to mention recent USPAP interpretations of using a prior inspection for a current report that have come down from Mount Olympus. Looks like no clean hands in this one. Should have handled it as a new assignment, and I would have revisited the subject for the reasons JTip pointed along with new market/comp data, etc.

 

[Dublin ohio]

So the client orders a 'new report' and you time travel to the past (using your old photos) and use the old (time travel) effective date with a signature date today.

That's a textbook 'retrospective appraisal' because you traveled back in time, one day or one thousand days.

Then you check the box [x] I have NOT inspected the subject property, because you can't travel back in time.

So can you use the information that you acquired about the subject when you inspected the home that you didn't inspect