Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Marcia Langley]

Three more questions:

QA In this particular system, does the appraiser execute a unique signing command before the report is uploaded? After it is uploaded? Both? Neither? Is the signature applied non-uniquely as an imbedded component of a macro command after upload but before transmission? Is the signature applied non-uniquely as an imbedded component of a macro command during transmission for the first time or for the second time or for the third time?

QB When the board gets a true copy of the appraisal in the workfile and it is the appraisal software version, not the delivery software uploaded version, is there an electronic signature on it?

QC If I understand correctly, the appraiser, as an assignment condition, has to purchase the delivery software. Is the appraiser given the option of whether to purchase a delivery software component that allows the review/save/print function of the uploaded version or does that function come with the basic delivery software purchase?


The more I learn about this particular system, the more questions I have but this is what I'm thinking so far regarding this particular system.

1 The system in question is not stand alone appraisal software, it is delivery software. In other words, one would still have to first present (present it for upload to the delivery system) their report on their appraisal software before it could be uploaded into the delivery software.

2 There are alterations of the "presented" appraisal that occur in both the upload and transmission phases of the delivery system.

3 The client requires the delivery software as an assignment condition. The client is fully aware of the ramifications of requiring this delivery software and the appraiser must either accept the use of this delivery software or decline the assignment.

4 There are some types of data that simply will not load to the upload version and the client knows this. By making this an assignment condition, the client seems to be saying "You can present that data but it is my choice of whether or not I want to look at it." The same as if he had received a paper copy of 24 pages and only looked at one page before making his decision and never looked at the remainder.

So far, I'm thinking that the boards are correct that the appraisal version that is presented for upload is the true copy of the appraisal. And so far, I'm also agreeing with Pam's thinking that the boards are going to be under so much pressure from both sides that it will have to go to the courts for resolution.

 

[Marcia Langley]

One more question. In the interval after upload but before transmission is there an errors and omissions computerized check similar to what is found in appraisal software?

If the appraiser were to be held accountable for that version would his entire review for compliance be purely manual?

 

[TJSum]

Three more questions:

QA In this particular system, does the appraiser execute a unique signing command before the report is uploaded? After it is uploaded? Both? Neither? Is the signature applied non-uniquely as an imbedded component of a macro command after upload but before transmission? Is the signature applied non-uniquely as an imbedded component of a macro command during transmission for the first time or for the second time or for the third time?

QB When the board gets a true copy of the appraisal in the workfile and it is the appraisal software version, not the delivery software uploaded version, is there an electronic signature on it?

QC If I understand correctly, the appraiser, as an assignment condition, has to purchase the delivery software. Is the appraiser given the option of whether to purchase a delivery software component that allows the review/save/print function of the uploaded version or does that function come with the basic delivery software purchase?


The more I learn about this particular system, the more questions I have but this is what I'm thinking so far regarding this particular system.

1 The system in question is not stand alone appraisal software, it is delivery software. In other words, one would still have to first present (present it for upload to the delivery system) their report on their appraisal software before it could be uploaded into the delivery software.

2 There are alterations of the "presented" appraisal that occur in both the upload and transmission phases of the delivery system.

3 The client requires the delivery software as an assignment condition. The client is fully aware of the ramifications of requiring this delivery software and the appraiser must either accept the use of this delivery software or decline the assignment.

4 There are some types of data that simply will not load to the upload version and the client knows this. By making this an assignment condition, the client seems to be saying "You can present that data but it is my choice of whether or not I want to look at it." The same as if he had received a paper copy of 24 pages and only looked at one page before making his decision and never looked at the remainder.

So far, I'm thinking that the boards are correct that the appraisal version that is presented for upload is the true copy of the appraisal. And so far, I'm also agreeing with Pam's thinking that the boards are going to be under so much pressure from both sides that it will have to go to the courts for resolution.

Marcia, hopefully some others will come along to chime in. My tech know how is very limited as I am reaching geezer status.

I was told by my clients (both of which had been long term clients for over ten years who had switched to the new delivery systems) that in order to continue doing work with them that I would have to use both AI Ready and Lighthouse. So yes, if I refused I would have lost those long term relationships.

However, after purchasing both conversion programs and trying each one only once, I refused to send my reports out with the conversion. Like I noted before, I could easily see the changes it had made to the report, but I couldn't stop wondering what changes it could have made that I did not catch or see before sending. So I told those clients the problems and they agreed with me and understood. So I sent them the reports PDF and have since then. Appraisal Port does accept PDF's, but they are not thrilled with it and it lessens your chance of receiving work from other Lenders through them. So to answer this question, it was mandatory to purchase the conversion programs to be accepted as a member of Appraisal Port, but not mandatory that it be utilized.

So keep in mind my experiences are very limited, trying both programs only once. AI Ready does not have a separate signature function, if I remember correctly. Lighthouse does, and removes your original signature when the conversion takes place. You have to purchase a $299 conversion program from ACI and then a separate $75 signature file in order to replace your signature on the converted report (password protected).

I don't remember if AI Ready has a review function, but Lighthouse does. The problem with the review process, it seems like it was geared more towards ease of data mining through format corrections as much as anything else. For example, if you wrote out May 30, 2008, it would come back saying you have an error on the report because all dates must be in 05/30/2008 format (easier data mining?).

When the AI Ready or Lighthouse conversion shows up on the screen, yes you can edit it. So if an appraiser does download through AI Ready or Lighthouse, that version should be considered the final true copy because the appraiser has control of the report until here.

After that, who knows what happens to the report, I have read on the Forum that the AMC's will at least put their watermark on each page and of course they attach an invoice. These changes may appear innocent, but if they have access enough to do that, what else could they change?

Lighthouse and AI Ready are conversion softwares yes, but seeing how they can be edited when shown on the screen, I guess one could converted their boiler plate and actually build the report after conversion, not sure. Lighthouse is only needed if you have software other than ACI, if you use ACI, the Lighthouse conversion is not needed as that is already compatible.

Clickforms has several hundred form options, but only a handfull are actually compatible with these conversion programs, so many forms/exhibits will not convert. One just needs to get experienced with what they can and can not use in order to send all the added info necessary to have a good complete report. For example, Clickforms might have 15 different map pages to choose from, but only 1 or 2 may be convertible, so you just have to learn whcih ones to use. Same with photo exhibits, Clickforms has dozens of versions to choose from, but only a couple can be used in order to convert. If one plans on using these conversion programs a lot, you would need to set up a separate boiler plate with the convertible type forms.

 

[BRCJR]

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 not 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.

If I am properly informed, I think no violation/no disciplinary action is removed after 3 years, and that is three years to long. I do not know about a case with violations, as to the time it remains an active public record.

I do think the no violation/no disciplinary action should not remain on your record, case in point, when reviewing an appraiser for approval to perform appraisals for my employer (local lender) it does look less than desirable for the applicant if I see this when I check their status on DPOR web site.

I will go the extra mile and call them and see if they will discuss the issues. Many times I find it to be something that should have never made it to the board, in my opinion.

Most complaints in Virginia, from what I am lead to believe, are supers checking the did inspect box, when in fact they did not. I support that as a bonafide complaint.

Second most filed complaint, again from what I am lead to believe, is from an appraiser filing against another appraiser, trying to thin the herd, because they worked "their" territory.

I am also told the second most complaint filed is one of the easiest to discredit, but it remains a closed case and there again "taints" the preception of the appraiser, as to be ethical and competent, not to mention the time and money spent and/or lost on the issue.

Don, you ever think about service on the board? It is a political appointment from what I understand. I think it actually is a Govenor appointment.

 

[robert higgins]

Here is another question to this matter, who is the one converting the appraisal report?
Report is done on my computer, converted to PDF on my computer, then the report sent to a 3rd party conduit, the 3rd party computer program converts it to what ever, during, or after the report is sent. Since the report was in the format I sent it, at delivery, but was changed on their computer system, by their computer software, how can they argue the appraiser is responsible for the converted report? How can they argue that they are not fraudulently changing the report?

 

[BRCJR]

Here is another question to this matter, who is the one converting the appraisal report?
Report is done on my computer, converted to PDF on my computer, then the report sent to a 3rd party conduit, the 3rd party computer program converts it to what ever, during, or after the report is sent. Since the report was in the format I sent it, at delivery, but was changed on their computer system, by their computer software, how can they argue the appraiser is responsible for the converted report? How can they argue that they are not fraudulently changing the report?

I think at issue is once you convert it, say pdf., from your software program, it is not the "same" as if you open your software program and printed it. The pdf. conversion is not exactly as your software image. Therefore, you do not have a "true copy". What is different I cannot answer, but think that is the "issue".

A simple solution is to send it to yourself as a pdf. and keep this as a record. Also, if your desire to change software providers becomes an option you wish to exercise, you have a file you could open without the need for the "older" software you used to create the report with. You upgrade your computer and need support services to re-install your "older" software and do not have a current agreement with them you will probably not get any help. But, you will have a saved pdf. hopefully on a CD or external drive, for example.

 

[TJSum]

The best bet is to save the actual email you sent the client with the PDF report attached. This will be proof of what you sent them with a time line. I have an email folder just for "sent reports" going back several years.

Having the PDF only saved to your hard drive doesn't really prove that is what you sent to the client.

 

[robert higgins]

I think at issue is once you convert it, say pdf., from your software program, it is not the "same" as if you open your software program and printed it. The pdf. conversion is not exactly as your software image. Therefore, you do not have a "true copy". What is different I cannot answer, but think that is the "issue".

A simple solution is to send it to yourself as a pdf. and keep this as a record. Also, if your desire to change software providers becomes an option you wish to exercise, you have a file you could open without the need for the "older" software you used to create the report with. You upgrade your computer and need support services to re-install your "older" software and do not have a current agreement with them you will probably not get any help. But, you will have a saved pdf. hopefully on a CD or external drive, for example.

The point is it does not matter what "I" do with my report before delivery, heck I can copy it on to a napkin and send it, the true copy of my report is the one I print and put in my work file and send to my client. Any other verisons of it is not a true copy.

 

[Jim Hill]

A few things come to my mind in reading all the post so far.

1. Are any state boards even interested in this problem?
2. How could AI do something like this to appraisers and get away with it.
3. There must be an Attorney General in some state willing to look into this problem.
4. I believe what many of these companies have done in fraud.
Jim Hill

 

[Don Clark]

Don, you ever think about service on the board? It is a political appointment from what I understand. I think it actually is a Govenor appointment.

Bill,

I have been recommended several times. Once by a national organization, once by the VAR. Guess I am not political enough

I know several people who were found with no violations and their names are still on the web site with the accusation and found to be innocent. Yes, The Governor selects all members of the appraisal board.