Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Kevin A. Spellman]

USPAP will have to retire “True Copies” within the Record Keeping paragraph of the Ethics Rule if the lending industry is not receiving the appraiser’s report as written through web-portals.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Yes, they would print and save to the computer.

So does anyone here know whether any state boards are demanding that converted true copy when they request workfiles on assignments that were uploaded to that particular system?

 

[c w d]

Pay attention here!!!!! These lenders, AMCs and AppraisalPort are all setting you up to take the blame for anything/everything they do to YOUR appraisal report.

Pam, has the agreement for AIready conversion that is required by clients in order to perform work for them been challenged, that you know of? Why don't we, as appraisers, force the issue in a class action suit?

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

c w d, send your contact info to me at PamC @ MortgageFraudWatchList. org (remove the spaces). We'll talk!

 

[Don Clark]

So does anyone here know whether any state boards are demanding that converted true copy when they request workfiles on assignments that were uploaded to that particular system?

Marcia,

Not sure if that is the case in the one I know about. But, an appraiser is to appear before the state bpard and the attorney has a true copy of what was sent and a copy of the one the board is questioning. The one the board has was changed and even new comps used that the appraiser knew nothing about. Sorry, cannot say more. It is in the hands of the attorney right now, and no, it is not one of mine.

 

[Oregon Doug]

So does anyone here know whether any state boards are demanding that converted true copy when they request workfiles on assignments that were uploaded to that particular system?

The short answer is: no (none to my knowledge anyway.)

Most appraisers (& boards too) believed that the changes were being made by the portal companies so that there would be no true copy of the converted report in the appraiser's workfile. It turns out that this was an incorrect assumption on everyone's part. The conversion is actually taking place on the appraiser's computer and the converted report is what is sent out. Basically, the appraiser never sees the actual report that he sends out over his signature.

I'm not sure what can be done about it. (Make appraisers buy the additional software to see & copy the converted report for the workfile - at an additional cost of time & money? I don't think so.)

Workable suggestions?

Oregon Doug

 

[TJSum]

I can only think of two reasons why a client would demand for an appraiser to use their particular software.

1- Easier data mining.
2- Allows for the client to "edit" the reports.

Would there be any other legitimate reason for this demand ???

 

[TJSum]

The short answer is: no (none to my knowledge anyway.)

Most appraisers (& boards too) believed that the changes were being made by the portal companies so that there would be no true copy of the converted report in the appraiser's workfile. It turns out that this was an incorrect assumption on everyone's part. The conversion is actually taking place on the appraiser's computer and the converted report is what is sent out. Basically, the appraiser never sees the actual report that he sends out over his signature.

I'm not sure what can be done about it. (Make appraisers buy the additional software to see & copy the converted report for the workfile - at an additional cost of time & money? I don't think so.)

Workable suggestions?

Oregon Doug

I am tech challenged, so this is just my limited opinion, but I think it is both. The appraiser types up the report on his/her software. Then they use one of the conversion programs, either AI Ready or Lighthouse. These conversion programs do in fact change the report, no matter how minor, it is not a 100% exact copy. (My concern always would be, what about the changes that were made that I did not notice before sending it out). Yes, the appraiser can save this converted "final copy" to their computer and print it. But I am under the impression, once it goes to the client, further changes are made to the report, this is why they are demanding usage of their software in the first place (besides data mining). Many clients will have their AMC name appear on the top of the pages instead of the appraisers business name for example (from what i hear) and also the AMC will attach their own invoice to the report that the appraiser never sees. So like I said, I think it gets changed twice, once in the conversion process before sending, and then who knows what is changed after it is received.

Your question of how to address this, yes the appraiser should be held fully accountable for what they send out, but laws need to be set in place to make it illegal for anyone, especially the client, to edit the reports in ANY fashion. As an appraiser, that report is ours with our signature, and if any changes are made to it by a third party, it should be considered fraud.

 

[BRCJR]

Marcia,

Not sure if that is the case in the one I know about. But, an appraiser is to appear before the state bpard and the attorney has a true copy of what was sent and a copy of the one the board is questioning. The one the board has was changed and even new comps used that the appraiser knew nothing about. Sorry, cannot say more. It is in the hands of the attorney right now, and no, it is not one of mine.

Don,

Is this before the board as a complaint or just an informal fact finding mission?

It appears, per the statement made by the investigator for DPOR, in the meeting referenced in the AppraisalScoop article, about George Dodd presenting his petition, this should have never reached the board as a complaint against an appraiser, in my opinion.

If in fact the two reports differ (changes the appraiser shows were after delivery), and IFF mission uncovered this, there should not be a need for presentation, to the board, for a possible sanction of the appraiser, there again, in my opinion.

 

[Don Clark]

Don,

Is this before the board as a complaint or just an informal fact finding mission?

It appears, per the statement made by the investigator for DPOR, in the meeting referenced in the AppraisalScoop article, about George Dodd presenting his petition, this should have never reached the board as a complaint against an appraiser, in my opinion.

If in fact the two reports differ (changes the appraiser shows were after delivery), and IFF mission uncovered this, there should not be a need for presentation, to the board, for a possible sanction of the appraiser, there again, in my opinion.

Bill,

Don't know for sure but likely in the investigation/IFF process. I did not press the attorney due to confidentiality. But, I will follow up with him at some point.

It is a shame that regardless of whether or mot it is valid, or whether or not a sanction is imposed or not, it stays on record against your name. That is a lousy DPOR rule. Seems to me that that sort of thing should disappear in no more than 5 years.