Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Don Clark]

HMMMMM...if we are going to reference Cert 21 I implore everyone to read the last of that Cert....not just the first.....DUH
Also, I think we should pay attention to Cert. 24 and the sanctitiy of signatures....I think one should also refer to FNMA's own guidelines regarding delivery of the report as if it were just a good ole fashion paper report.....we shall see. AND the reports are NOT being sent to the client UNCONVERTED, UNADULTERATED, and THEN sent back to the data miners....Its done prior to...thank you very much,
According to my info...which I beleive is fact, but do not guarantee it.....but we shall see shan't we?

In Virginia, thanks to you, George Dodd who brought the petition to the appraisal Board, and the members of the Appraisal Board, we shall indeed see.

 

[Workbox]

HMMMMM...if we are going to reference Cert 21 I implore everyone to read the last of that Cert....not just the first.....DUH
Also, I think we should pay attention to Cert. 24 and the sanctitiy of signatures....I think one should also refer to FNMA's own guidelines regarding delivery of the report as if it were just a good ole fashion paper report.....we shall see. AND the reports are NOT being sent to the client UNCONVERTED, UNADULTERATED, and THEN sent back to the data miners....Its done prior to...thank you very much,
According to my info...which I beleive is fact, but do not guarantee it.....but we shall see shan't we?

I have read those and they are very telling, but some with significant influence want others to look the other-way or confuse the matter.

 

[DWiley]

Cert 24 is actually very intersting. Since virtually no residential appraisers actually use an "electronic signature," as defined in federal law, it is hard to say how a jurisdiction might react to a claim based on Cert 24.

I agree that Cert 21 should be read in its entirety. One cannot look at either the first part or second part alone. The first part of Cert 21 grants permission for the report to be sent (without consent of the appraiser) to a long list of entities, including "data collection or reporting services."

The second part says that appraiser consent is required for distribution to any other party (i.e. an entity not included in the list in the first sentence). Some I have talked with want to take the second part out of context - ignoring the reference to the first sentence.

 

[Workbox]

Some I have talked with want to take the second part out of context - ignoring the reference to the first sentence.

Whom may they be?

 

[DWiley]

Whom may they be?

Several from this Forum have contacted me privately. If they want to identify themselves, they can. Otherwise, I will respect their choice to communicate privately. If they wanted public discussion they could have posted publicly.

 

[Joyce Potts]

Several from this Forum have contacted me privately. If they want to identify themselves, they can. Otherwise, I will respect their choice to communicate privately. If they wanted public discussion they could have posted publicly.

Let the record reflect I was not one of them.

And of what purpose does that post serve anyway?

 

[robert higgins]

DW,

I agree Cert 21 is an interesting statement which I believe most clients and or intended users of the appraisal report ignore the two key words in that statement “disclose or distribute”. No where does it say that the listed parties who have been disclosed information within the report or been distributed the appraisal report was granted the right to breakdown, strip out, mine, convert, alter, change, unlock, duplicate, clone, or disseminate any component or part of the report, including, but not limited to, any of its conclusions, and valuations, opinions, or data compilations and so on.

The first sentence basically says you grant, with out written consent, the client and/or intended users, that they can disclose information within the report to the listed parties and/or grant the client and/or intended users to be able to send a copy to any of the listed parties, but it does not say the listed parties are granted (with or with out written consent by the appraiser) the usage or rights to the appraisal report. Second part, basically say the client and/or intended users cannot disclose or distribute to any public parties with out written consent.

So, back to the question in hand, How can they, a 3rd party, listed or not, have authorization to change the appraisal report (unlock, reformatting, clone, and/or convert a report, and so on) before it gets delivered to the client with out the authorization of the appraiser who wrote the appraisal for a client, if the 3rd party is not named as a client?

 

[Bigrock]

See the last page and the the last 2 items..

After this is passed, I am going to need some real hard evidence,,,Not just hearsay..

thanks
Rock

 

[Smokey Bear]

(q) electronically transmit an appraisal report without taking reasonable
steps to ensure that the report cannot be altered or modified.
(r) electronically submit an appraisal report with the knowledge or intent
that the report may be alter or modified by the client, liaison of the recipient,
or appraisal management company.

I hate it when they don't indent the outline format - it's really hard to follow, but this is the gist of it - they're going after the slice and dice portals.​

 

[DWiley]

So appraisers authorize distribution to a data service, but withhold the right for the data service to actually use it. It is a creative argument, but I don't see the logic of that position and I doubt any disinterested party would either.

"Honest, your honor, I had no idea that if my report was sent to a data collection service the data would actually be collected"

So, back to the question in hand, How can they, a 3rd party, listed or not, have authorization to change the appraisal report (unlock, reformatting, clone, and/or convert a report, and so on) before it gets delivered to the client with out the authorization of the appraiser who wrote the appraisal for a client, if the 3rd party is not named as a client?

I don't think they have any such authorization, but I don't see the relevance to this thread because AIReady and AP don't work that way.

The conversion into AIReady format occurs prior to the appraiser submitting it. The client receives it in AIReady format. They are then free to apply tools that let them rearrange the information, review the report, etc. (Just as they used to apply a staple puller to a paper report)