• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

USPAP violations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Licensing is arguably a separate issue from appraisal standards. The professional standards for appraiser competency and ethical conduct existed in various form - in writing - long before any of us got into appraising, let alone before the advent of licensing. Some of the housekeeping details have changed and expanded and we have focused a lot more attention on explanation and elaboration and application than ever occurred before, but the basics remain the same.

One way or another you and your intended users need to operate under the common understanding - that's the only way your work has any utility. The requirements for disclosing the basis of that common understanding in terms neither side can reimagine after the fact is an imposition on you, but it's also *primarily* geared for protecting the legitimate interests of both parties in the event there's a dispute or misunderstanding.

A lot of people don't really have a firm grasp of all the traffic laws, either; even though they're applicable every time you get behind the wheel. Sometimes the State gets carried away in the enforcement and adjudication of those laws - that's just one of the weaknesses in any society. It doesn't undermine the utility or the necessity of those laws, nor the legitimacy in how those laws came to be.

It's not like there's really a viable alternative. Like it or not the government has an interest in these forms of commerce, they are involved in protecting the rights of the public and Congress has passed these requirements for the states to run licensing programs. It will literally take an act of Congress to roll any of that back. In the meantime there are 55 appraiser licensing jurisdictions and their various approaches to enforcing their laws crosses a spectrum between too much and too little.

If you're going to use a computer you'd best be familiar with how it operates WRT the tasks you're trying to perform.
 
people don't really have a firm grasp of all the traffic laws
Most people can read the speed limit sign. Some towns may be lenient. Others are speed traps, but the MPH is what is posted. It is clear. I know I'm speeding. I've never gotten a ticket when I wasn't actually speeding...nor even told I was speeding and thought I wasn't. USPAP is a speed sign with no numbers on it. It simply says "Drive Slower" and then you get a ticket because you wasn't "slow enough.".... big difference.

It's not like there's really a viable alternative
That's little consolation to folks who lose a license after being told by others that their report isn't that bad but the state decides otherwise.
 
If the state was getting beat in court they'd adjust their process. That goes back to cases being poorly argued.
 
It is an argument for competitive standards. he winner would be the best articulated standard that is also usefully practical.

The government will have to let loose of the monopoly it created in order to encourage better standards via competition, within the USA.

On the World stage, tree is some competition for appraisal standards.

http://ipmsc.org (international property measurement standards)

http://211.100.28.194/English/about.html (China Institute of Real Estate Practices)

There are many more alternative paradigms out there.
 
Well sure, and guess what: for appraisers the basics are going to be the same. Competency + Ethics + Say-What-You-Do/Do-
What-You-Say.


Only some of the housekeeping will be different. And you'll still have exactly the same problems with the people end of interpretation and adjudication.

I don't care much which set of standards is in play. All I want is the defensible position. The ability to point to a standard that my opposition cannot deny or dork to their advantage. The content of those standards isn't as important as its applicability. The "Uniform" is what makes USPAP work for me instead of the other way around.
 
If the state was getting beat in court they'd adjust their process.
Well...isn't that what I alluded to? There appear to be some states that can override the decision of the administrative judge....and there is no appeal process.

And is there an institutional memory that will teach the board not to repeat the mistakes of the past after a couple of board cycles?


All I want is the defensible position.
that is the issue. How do you defend yourself when your interpretation, and even that of many of your peers is different from the actual interpretation of the board?
 
A good defensible position would be license legislation that also grants a special statute of limitation for appraisal work, say, 6 months or limits damages to the amount paid for the appraisal by the party with damage claims (may reliers, for example).

OK. Appraisers would never have that kind of political clout unless they formed a militia, or something:icon_mrgreen: It costs way too much to buy that kind of clout.
 
OK. Appraisers would never have that kind of political clout unless they formed a militia, or something:icon_mrgreen: It costs way too much to buy that kind of clout.
12345678900000
 
Last edited:
Arkansas adopted a three year statute of limitations upon investigations. This conforms to the state S of L. It is reasonable. If they can't find the fraud by then, it ought to be that way. But the ASC pitched a hissy when they discovered it. Wanted the board to override the state legislature....say what?
 
That implies a disconnect between USPAP and "accepted appraisal procedures", doesn't it?

Obviously, an appraiser and a reviewer in theory could arrive at significantly different conclusions. In theory, each could have complied with USPAP. In theory, each could have developed a "credible" report that violates USPAP...in theory, if I could flap my arm's fast enough, I could fly around the building.

The difference between compliance and non compliance is a soft wide gray line and any attempt at a clear delineation is a fool's errand. I don't know where violation begins and "mistakes" ends. I honestly don't believe anyone does. And therefore, USPAP is punitive. I have less faith today that I "comply" with USPAP than I did in 1992.

I agree with this in good part. I've highlighted some of the words in the COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED USPAP VIOLATIONS I believe to have some degree of ambiguity, and about which appraisers may - with some justification - disagree about the meaning and application of. It's a tedious argument - I get that - but appraisers are vulnerable to the possibility of significant inconvenience and expense if a review appraiser or regulator has a different opinion about what words mean and what commonly accepted methodology requires.

As a very wise appraiser wrote, "How do you defend yourself when your interpretation, and even that of many of your peers is different from the actual interpretation of the board?"

COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED USPAP VIOLATIONS
I. Overview: The following list of USPAP violations are those most commonly encountered by the Board’s staff appraiser-investigators when investigating complaints filed with the Board. This list is given for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or instructions on how to
properly comply with USPAP or properly complete an appraisal assignment.

II. Most Commonly Encountered USPAP Violations

A. Sales Comparison Selection of Comparable Properties

Failing to select and/or support the selection of comparable sales using recognized methods and techniques. Examples include:
1. Leaving the subject’s neighborhood when sales data is readily available in the immediate neighborhood;
2. Searching by price;
3. Utilizing sales of superior quality, superior site characteristics, and/or superior amenities when more similar sales to the subject were readily available; and
4. Lack of documentation in the workfile for the comparable sales and search criteria selected.

B. Market Analysis

Providing a market analysis of sufficient depth to be credible for the intended
use. Examples include:
1. Delineation of neighborhood boundaries;
2. Not identifying the relevant characteristics criteria of the neighborhood; and
3. Failing to identify market trends, including the analysis of and the effect, if any, of bank owned (“REO”) properties and/or the analysis of current listings in the neighborhood.

C. Sales History

Failing to report and analyze all agreements of sale, options and listings, current as of the appraisal’s effective date, or the sales history of the subject property for three years prior to the effective date. Commonly found violations also include failure to report and analyze prior listings of the subject when the listings would have a significant effect on the credibility of the assignment results and the failure to reconcile this data with other data in the report.

D. Sales Comparison Adjustments

Failure to support adjustments in the sales comparison approach in a market value appraisal based on recognized methods and techniques. Examples include:
1. Developing paired sales analysis but not documenting in the appraisal report and/or workfile;
2. Utilizing “rules of thumb” adjustments without documenting market-based support; and
3. Misrepresenting in the report that a method and technique was utilized when in fact it was not.

E. Cost Approach

Failure to develop and/or support cost new, estimate of site value, and the
estimate of accrued depreciation. Examples include:
1. Stating that certain methods or techniques were relied upon but they were not actually performed;
2. Reliance on County Appraisal District estimates of site value without a proper basis; and
3. Unsupported estimates of effective age and/or economic life.
08/2013

F. Certification Misrepresentations

Failing to comply with the representations made in the certifications signed and included in the appraisal report. Examples include:
1. Stating in the certification that you inspected the subject property when in fact you had not; and
2. Failing to identify persons that contributed significant assistance to the appraisal report.

G. Boilerplate Language

. Failing to edit canned statements or boilerplate to avoid conflicting,
inappropriate, and/or incorrect statements so as to produce a misleading appraisal report. An example includes making statements not applicable to the appraisal.

H. Site Analysis

Failing to identify, analyze, and/or report the relevant characteristics of the site and improvements of the subject property in sufficient detail. Examples include:
1. Failing to report and describe the specific and accurate zoning for the subject property;
2. Failing to accurately calculate the subject’s gross living area (GLA) of the main dwelling and/or not misrepresenting the GLA by including the area of auxiliary living units, enclosed patios, and/or converted garages;
3. Failing to report and analyze easements on the property; and
4. Failing to report and analyze the existence of detrimental site conditions on adjacent properties. ?

I. Highest and Best Use

. Failing to provide an adequate analysis, rational and/or support of the appraiser’s opinion of highest and best use.

. Communication of Assignment Results

. Failure to communicate the assignment results in sufficient detail to enable the intended users to understand the appraisal report properly.

Examples include:
1. Failing to adequately describe remodeling or repairs to the subject property;
2. Failing to report and describe additional features of the property such as a swimming pool and/or barns; and
3. Failing to reconcile the quality and quantity of data available and analyzed within the
approaches, and failing to reconcile the relevance of the approaches, methods and techniques used to develop an opinion of value.

K. Workfile
. Failing to maintain a workfile containing all data, information and documentation necessary to support the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions and demonstrate compliance with
USPAP.
Examples include:
1. Failure to make retrieval arrangements with another party if the appraiser does not have custody of the workfile; and
2. Failure to make a workfile available when required by a state regulatory agency.

L. Scope of Work

Failing to develop, apply, and/or disclose a credible scope of work (including extraordinary assumptions and/or hypothetical conditions). Examples include:
1. Not disclosing the scope of work actually performed; and
2. Not stating the extraordinary assumptions and/or hypothetical conditions relied on in the
assignment.
08/2013
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top