USPAP 2006 Online

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

This is typical forum. Lets make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Ms. Janet]

The main thrust of the disclosure requiremnts in the new SOW Rule is that intended users must be able to understand the scope of work that was performed. The passage causing angst is merely a statement that full understanding of the scope of work might require an appraiser to disclose things not done.

An example might be those who currently state they "did inspect" when in fact they only looked at photos. For an intended user to truly understand the scope, one would have to disclose that the "inpsection" did not involve actually visiting the property.

Have a good day

JC

HUH? Looking at photos only and checking "did inspect" when you never saw the property............thats got little to do with undertanding scope of work...........thats called misleading the user.

 

[Lee Lansford]

On Saturday, 3/18, I completed the AQB USPAP Instructor Recertification Course in beautiful Rosemont, IL. Representatives from the ASB were present and led the course. My impression: They are dedicated professionals who give to the profession and they welcome your imput! If you have a question that is relevant to our profession and requires comment from the ASB, by all means send them an e-mail! Who knows...your question may be answered in one of the monthly "Q&A's"!

FYI: The "departure" of the Departure Rule (effective 7/1/06) does not change any of the responsibilities of the appraiser in developing and communicating a necessary approach to value. If an approach to value was necessary in an appraisal you did yesterday, the approach will be necessary on 7/1/06.

As to disclosing "things not done"...we are all aware that the list COULD be endless, but a competent appraiser should be able to separate what is important from what is not (i.e., "The appraiser's 'complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property' are limited to viewing readily accessible surface areas only..." may be relevant; the fact that the appraiser did not analyze the absorption rates for M-F solds for different time periods when appraising a typical SFR detached in a large subdivision of similar housing would probably NOT be relevant; you get the idea).

The 2006 USPAP will be in effect for 18 months. The goal is to go to a 2-year cycle.

 

[Mr Rex]

The 2006 USPAP will be in effect for 18 months. The goal is to go to a 2-year cycle.

There is an appraisal god.

 

[George Hatch]

One of the things I do when I report my SOW for an assignment involving an exterior-only inspection is that I go out of my way to explain that I did not inspect the interior or measure the structure. That's an example of disclosing a negative. Another example of disclosing a negative might involve the reliance on public records or other third party sources of information as being accurate without further verification. There are lots of examples of those types of limitations that appraisers commonly use. I don't think acknowledging those limitations in conjunction with the SOWR opens any cans that weren't already open.

 

[Mr Rex]

George, is that an indication that you can feel comfortable with the new 2055 and not violate Fannies requirements for additional EAs etc? Not trying to be funny on this one, I respect your opinion and would like a straight shot. I don't have as much heart burn as some folks with the new 2055, but I have been fortunate enough to have been able to convince clients to upgrade to 1004 or use the old 2055 up until now. I know it will only get harder to convince them as time goes by. Your commentary will be greatly appreciated (I know this is slightly off post, but I had to ask).

 

[Fred]

The 2006 USPAP will be in effect for 18 months. The goal is to go to a 2-year cycle.

So going from a 3-year cycle to a 2-year cycle – by first interposing two 18-month cycles. :icon_smile:

FYI: The "departure" of the Departure Rule (effective 7/1/06) does not change any of the responsibilities of the appraiser in developing and communicating a necessary approach to value. If an approach to value was necessary in an appraisal you did yesterday, the approach will be necessary on 7/1/06.

Except that the 2005 edition has criteria for defining “necessary” that don’t appear in the 2006 edition. It is possible that an appraiser might opine that what is necessary without the criteria is different from what is necessary under the criteria.
----

New words in blue. Deleted words in red

APPRAISER’S PEERS: other appraisers who have expertise and competency in a similar type assignment. the same or a similar type of assignment.

​

 

[George Hatch]

There are several things in Fannie's forms that give me heartburn, too. The way I look at it is like this: When I sign an appraisal report then it's my appraisal, not Fannie's, because I am the appraiser and they aren't. That means that it's ultimately my responsibility (not theirs) to communicate that appraisal in a manner that will not be misleading. Insofar as their boilerplate deliberately leaves several areas open to confusion, I'm not only entitled to clarify those areas - I'm required to do so in order to make my workproduct fit within standards.

The terms of my license require me to adhere to USPAP at a minimum. Those terms don't say anything about obeying form instructions that undermine the requirements in USPAP to communicate my appraisal reports in a manner that is not misleading. If Fannie's verbiage is a problem, that problem is one of their own making. They were given plenty of notice that there are some serious USPAP problems and they chose to ignore everyone else's input and do it anyway. As far as I'm concerned they can take responsibility for that decision.

<Edited for belligerence>

 

[Mr Rex]

George, Thanks for the comments. My sentiments exactly. If I were a 16 year old Appraiser I would have a sticker on my car that said "Ain't Skeered of No New Forms". I'm not 16 anymore, but I didn't think I was the only one that felt this way. Forced sex is called rape. The Fannie Mae forms are called market accepted. Go figure. Somebody is getting screwed against their will in either case if you just lay there and take it.

NOT edited for belligerence or PC content.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Insofar as their boilerplate deliberately leaves several areas open to confusion, I'm not only entitled to clarify those areas - I'm required to do so in order to make my workproduct fit within standards.

George,

You got it exactly right.

This obligation to fully develop the scope of work goes right to the heart of the effort the ASB made to deal with the cert 23 problem (among others).

The splash the AI and Fannie Mae made with their "acceptable language" regarding users has overshadowed what the ASB (and OREA) has had to say about it which, in my opinion, is the much more important (and useful) information.