USPAP violations

[Terrel L. Shields]

MHT and CAN are too entertaining to ignore....

 

[CANative]

Really, CAN, are you posting about a housekeeping forum issue? Gee...delete it so I can delete my post.

Why? It makes Terrel laugh.

 

[Lost Cause]

The Usual Answer - It Depends

Doesn't it depend on what the client is seeking when they commission a review assignment? I have no doubt there are many potential clients who want to know exactly that - "can you identify any USPAP violations in the report?"

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I think it really depends on how the SOW fits with the intended use.
I vote with Peter: sometimes it is a no-brainer (no certification, a clear violation). Sometimes it isn't so clear (use the word "potential" and give the reason why).

But clearly, IMO, an acceptable SOW for an appraisal review assignment is to make a determination if there are any USPAP violations.
It is an opinion, so support it. Again, most everyone here is defaulting to such reviews being used in mortgage finance/lender review work and that such reviews will be used against an individual appraiser.
That is not always the case, and many times, such a review would meet the client's intended use if the original appraiser's identify were never known; the original appraiser has nothing to do with the intended use of the assignment results.

Clear violation if in fact you received the entire report. Sometimes that isn't the case. I would be more apt to point out that a certification wasn't present rather than label it a USPAP violation in my review.

 

[George Hatch]

^^^ That's what I do. I also make it a point to identify exactly what I'm reviewing and how many pages it contains.

A report omission - if/when that's the case - is an omission in the report; it isn't necessarily proof that the appraiser didn't do something.

 

[Mile High Trout]

You've got to count the pages, and that's always great disclosure.

I like to keep my reports with an auto index page as well.