Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Mike Kennedy]

My defense has not been for the benefit of FNC. It has been for those wronged by state boards (and others) that twist USPAP to defend a biased position.

Just last week a state board in my region found an appraiser guilty of violating USPAP because he did not have a Scope of Work section in his report; he spread the scope of work disclosure over several sections of the report rather than putting it in a single section.

The board took action against the appraiser despite the appraiser producing several written statements by the body that actually writes USPAP that there was no requirement for a report to have a specific Scope of Work section.

To those encouraging boards to ignore the words in USPAP and enforce based on personal beliefs, be careful what you wish for. You may be the next victim whose reporting style they do not like.

Danny did you defend that Appraiser in writing to your Board as vehemently?

 

[George W Dodd]

That's not true. Many intended uses require more than the "lowest level" of work for credible results.

By default, USPAP sets the lowest level, if the USPAP requires more in one situation than that is the lowest level for that assignment.

Do you really believe that USPAP sets the highest level?

And the alleged vintage of software is releated to USPAP in some way?

Again, only an Appraiser is governed by USPAP. As I've stated long ago, you can do an appraisal on a napkin and still meet USPAP. So?

 

[Fred]

Again, only an Appraiser is governed by USPAP. As I've stated long ago, you can do an appraisal on a napkin and still meet USPAP. So?

The first so is that you statement about "lowest level" was factually false. I just thought I'd point that out. I don't care much for the promulgation of USPAP errors.

 

[George Hatch]

There is a difference between the terms "lowest standards" and "minimum standards".

 

[woodyva]

One of the documents is USPAP itself. No wonder they can't catch Skippy. Too busy enforcing imaginary rules and cracking down on software companies.

It seems both of you gentlemen are off base. Had you attended you may understand the problem a little better. I guess we will have to wait and see what is happening on the 19th. I would welcome you both to attend, but somehow I doubt either will make it.

Steve you are welcome to have a lender pop in and state their case clearly, surley you could talk and Excutive from Wells to stop by. That leads to my biggest question:

Why are there no lenders at these meetings? If the clients are the ones being so set on getting these things in a specific file format? I bet that answer lies within the fact no lender cares, they just want a report. They don't care how they get it. I would think the last thing a lender wants in the current spot light is whether they are party to limiting an appraiser's reporting ability or not.

 

[Fred]

It seems both of you gentlemen are off base. Had you attended you may understand the problem a little better.

Really? So where does USPAP say "lowest level?"

 

[Ken B]

There is an MAI in Richmond, VA. When I was appraising in VA, people often asked if I was that person.

I understand if this post is too cryptic for some people. In fact, it is expected.

 

[woodyva]

Really? So where does USPAP say "lowest level?"

Steve:
I don't remember ever saying anything about that. I believe you are refering to Dodd"s post. I was implying you were not at theemeeting and are relying on 3rd party accounting. There is more being argued then just USPAP. I was also refrring to Wiley's and your comments not Mr. Hatches.


Ken:
Please come on the 19th. I would be suprised to see you actually do something besides lambast someone from behnd a keyboard. I am sure Mr. Olson would love to have you I am sure. He seem sto be a wonderful representative to his compnay, but an appraiser he is not.

With that said I am suprised that Kathy Koon was not there with him.

 

[Offshore]

Imagine the nerve of the Old Dominion’s REAB, forming opinions without first consulting the forum egoists.

 

[Fred]

I was implying you were not at theemeeting and are relying on 3rd party accounting.

I wasn't referring to "the" meeting at all. I am not relying on ANY accounting. If they do something, they do something.

Similarly, I am not relying on the story that Georgia removed the proposed language I criticized here on advice from an employee of FNC.