USPAP violations

[George Hatch]

My question is why a reviewer would characterize a difference of opinion as an error. How do you go about calling an opinion right or wrong? There's only reasonable and unreasonable, which is the term we actually use in SR3.

As a reviewer I don't waste my time squabbling about opinions. I look at the underlying facts being asserted in support of those opinions. Unlike opinions, facts or what's objectively evident (like a new home being in good condition) can be accurate or inaccurate. As long as an appraiser isn't lying about those facts - by omission or commission - the resulting conclusions cannot get very far from reasonable. Hassling an appraiser over an adjustment factor for a basement is psycho unless they did something that's obviously atypical with that adjustment.

The other thing I do as a reviewer is to label my opinions as opinions so my reader understands the context - I try to do the same when I appraise.

Lastly, I don't think reviewers should EVER prevail with a user solely by virtue of their role as a reviewer. Prevailing in a dispute by status alone is just morally wrong. The workproduct itself either makes its case or it doesn't.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

In a way, the discussion of the specifics is sort of off topic in the context of my original post or question.

Since it is up to the state agency to make the determination that a violation of USPAP has occurred, should appraisers use the phrase "USPAP violation?"

Or would it be better to qualify the statement is "possibly" or "potentially" or some other qualifier?

Why would a reviewer not phrase it that way? Some (not all, but some) of USPAP's requirements are very simple and unequivocal (SR 2-3 for example), and their not being in the report being reviewed violates/doesn't comply with/breaches/contravenes/ignores those standards.

Where the USPAP requirement is ambiguous, perhaps it would be prudent to qualify the criticism, as in "It is my opinion that the appraisal report violates SR 1-1 (a)(viii) in that the summary of the information analyzed is inadequate."

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

I don't think a reviewer needs to make USPAP statements. There is one common mistake that many appraisers in this area make with regards to zoning. They tend to the think the state land use code (typically A1) is zoning. When I see that reported on the appraisal report constantly, I don't make a statement saying the appraiser made a USPAP violation or should not be allowed to do appraisals because they don't even know how to research zoning and report it properly. I just state their zoning is incorrect and it should be (R1, A-5, B, etc) per that cities zoning maps found on line. It is even comical when they use A1 zoning for rural properties with no zoning or state city sewers when there are no sewers only septic systems. But, I just report the facts and stick to that. We are not the USPAP police and is the reviewer remiss if they fail to point out other USPAP violations that the state boards considers violations? I read the monthly sanctions on our state board and I find some of their finding to be a stretch at times or more than one violation for the same error, etc. Why get into it when you are not the last word on what is not and what is a USPAP violation?

 

[hastalavista]

In a way, the discussion of the specifics is sort of off topic in the context of my original post or question.

Since it is up to the state agency to make the determination that a violation of USPAP has occurred, should appraisers use the phrase "USPAP violation?"

Or would it be better to qualify the statement is "possibly" or "potentially" or some other qualifier?

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.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

I may dwell on this issue unnecessarily, but a lot of review work that I'm aware of is done by certified appraisers (both CR & CG) doing review work for the TREAC when a complaint is filed. Part of the process with each appraisal - regardless of the reason for the complaint - is a "thorough" review, in which the reviewer is charged with determining the appraisal's compliance with USPAP.

A lender may be required to have a review in order to satisfy investors, including the GSEs, that due diligence requirements are being met. Reviews for TREAC (and I assume, by extension, for most other commissions) are thorough and USPAP compliance is a significant part of the review.

 

[CANative]

My question is why a reviewer would characterize a difference of opinion as an error.

Is making a statement that something amounts to a "USPAP violation" an opinion or a statement of fact as the reviewer (or any appraiser for that matter)?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Reviewers should not be attempting to make that determination.

 

[Mile High Trout]

If only the state could make an outbound phone call now and then.....

 

[CANative]

I see that MHT can post on a thread I started. We are on mutual ignore imposed by the head surfer and can't see each others posts. I can't post in threads he started.

Why is he allowed to but into my thread?

 

[gregb]

I see that MHT can post on a thread I started. We are on mutual ignore imposed by the head surfer and can't see each others posts. I can't post in threads he started.

Why is he allowed to but into my thread?

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