Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[TJSum]

That's restraint of trade - can not be done. Period. (The state can not tell you who you can/can't do business with nor can it tell you which software you can/can't use.) The board could publish a notice & warning to all appraisers that this activity is taking place to allow the appraiser to decide on his own. But such a warning could have no teeth.

It's my observation that few (if any) board members are even aware that this practice is going on. Who would require the state's enforcement?

Oregon Doug

This is a good point. From my limited knowledge, appraisers who use ACI do not have to purchase the Lighthouse conversion program. So if the "converison process" is deemed non USPAP compliant, the end result might be steering all appraisers to ACI software (when Lighthouse is demanded by the client).

But that raises another question, maybe all ACI users could already be in non compliance if the lack of "security" is already built into this software (conversion programs are not needed because the client already can do whatever it is they mine or change with the report).

 

[Marcia Langley]

But that raises another question, maybe all ACI users could already be in non compliance if the lack of "security" is already built into this software (conversion programs are not needed because the client already can do whatever it is they mine or change with the report).

If I understand you correctly, ACI software is a combination of appraisal software and transmission/conversion software. Right?

So the appraiser can do their due diligence for USPAP compliance, sign the certs, save the true copy, and hit the send button before any conversions are done. Right?

So a strict reading of the ASB Q&As regarding the true copy that was transmitted would seem to put that appraiser in compliance with USPAP.

If it is the case that all appraisals that are transmitted from this system are in fact changed, then obviously the appraiser knows it is going to be changed, they just don't know how.

I don't think the board should hold the appraiser responsible for forseeing what changes were made, especially since the software company could change their software at any time without notifying the appraiser.

For me, the interesting question that should be considered by a state board regarding one of these appraisals in any specific complaint is whether the complainant (let's say a lender or borrower) has provided a true copy of the appraisal in conjunction with their complaint. IMO that true copy should be a prerequisite for filing a complaint. If the complainant can't produce it, they should not have standing for a complaint.

I'll bet you that state boards are trying to accommodate lender and borrower complaints by comparing the appraiser-supplied true copy with the lender/borrower supplied version and only exempting the appraiser from items that don't match and holding the appraiser accountable for items that do match.

I doubt that boards waste any effort trying to understand why something does not match. For a lender or borrower the why may be an important issue that will never come up. The why may be for a reason that would outrage either the lender (who may have made a poor decision and was duped by the third party) or a borrower that will never know that their loan has been mishandled.

If state boards want to stay out of the middle of these software changes and out of the business of deciding what they mean, they should refuse to process a complaint that is not accompanied by a true copy of the appraisal.

And when the require the appraiser to send a true copy, they should use some diligence in making sure that's what they get.

This is the sort of situation I was referring to when I said it is the client's (lender's) choice to use these third party companies and the burden of dealing with any issues that arise from their use should be on the lender, not the appraiser.

How can a bank comply with the reg that says they must provide the borrower with a copy of the appraisal if they don't even have a true copy of it? If one sent the lender/client a 24 page paper copy and he threw away 10 pages of it before he sent the borrower the copy, isn't he in violation of the banking regs? That's an extreme case, but a lesser change would still affect the level of compliance with that banking reg.

 

[peturner]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
What is so hard to understand about Cert. 21??? The client can distribute the reports to a data collection agency. However, NO ONE has permission, implied or direct, to distribute or disclose to a third party. FURTHER, my permission is required PRIOR to disclosure or DISTRIBUTION through "other media". Anyone ever heard of the Internet?
Cert 24 states that the report I delivered as an "electronic record" shall be "effective, enforceable, and valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature."
How many of you people have been in this business long enough to remember gettin in your freaking car and HAND DELIVERING reports???? I bet not too many of you here.
This clause refers to the fact that because I have chosen to take advantage of the speed, ease, cost effectiveness, etc. of electronic delivery....what I deliver is ASSUMED and CONSIDERED to be EQUAL to a paper, hand-delivered original. END of Discussion.
How would any of you feel if your hand delivered copies were whited out, addendums removed, photos removed, and signature manipulated AFTER you delivered. SAME THING. FRAUD, plain and simple. Do not let the special interest groups scatter your brains.
The above is all my opinion, and opinions are like rear ends,,,,,,everyone has one...HOWEVER, mine comes with 36 years of experience, honesty, and dedication to the profession.
I am tired of all the BS about USPAP says all these 3rd parties can alter my report. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS> Trust me.....
I do agree we do not need new regulations....enforce what Fannie and Freddie and USPAP and the States already have and this will cease.
NEVER FORGET ONE QUESTION....WHO DOES IT BENEFIT IN THIS ENTIRE EPISODE...FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!???!!!???!

 

[c w d]

A complaint against an individual appraiser would not necessarily be needed. It would be a simple matter to hire ACI or WinTotal or anyone else that impliments AIready'ness into their software to demonstrate the conversion process of an appraisal that is 100% USPAP compliant, then review the converted appraisal, determine if that is not longer USPAP compliant, and then file a complaint with the board on that basis alone. All it takes is money, lawyers and a group of industry recognized well qualified appraisers who are considered USPAP experts. If the converted report is no longer compliant, file a complaint with the state's AB. If the AB refuses to act then litigate it. Anyone can sue anybody for any reason. The determinations of the suit are BINDING as if law.

Marcia, your argument about the complaints is valid. However, the state can and does mandate its own rules in addition to USPAP with which all aprpaisers are bound. But, lets not forget that the courts also provide another route to illicit a desired response. In most cases it is the path of least resistance compared to trying to work through a problem in a broken bureaucracy.

As for the restriction of trade argument, that is only valid when it is legal to conduct trade. Appraisers are bound by state law to comply with USPAP. If the state determines that none of its certified appraisers who utilize AIready delivery are transmitting USPAP compliant reports then the state has a moral imperative to stop those appraisers from breaking the law.

 

[TJSum]

I am no fan of these conversion programs so I am not defending them with this question, but what would make them non-compliant to USPAP? I do not understand where this notion is coming from. As long as the appraiser takes the time to learn which forms he/she would have to use that will actually convert, and then after the conversion process is complete does the due diligence reviewing the end result and editing any and alll parts that need edited before printing (for the file), saving and sending, where does the non-compliance part step in. I think we are focusing on the wrong thing here, the issue is why do they demand usage of "their software"? Is it just to data mine, or are their "other reasons"?

 

[Marcia Langley]

I am tired of all the BS about USPAP says all these 3rd parties can alter my report.

pe,

I'm not sure who you meant to refer to in this statement, but I hope it was not me because I certainly never said that.

My recent remarks were meant to talk about what an appraiser can be held accountable for. The only way I know to have an enlightning conversation about a many faceted problem is to break it down into its piece parts and examine it.

I'm asking lots of questions and thinking out loud and learning about the ramifications of this whole subject.

 

[c w d]

I am no fan of these conversion programs so I am not defending them with this question, but what would make them non-compliant to USPAP? I do not understand where this notion is coming from. As long as the appraiser takes the time to learn which forms he/she would have to use that will actually convert, and then after the conversion process is complete does the due diligence reviewing the end result and editing any and alll parts that need edited before printing (for the file), saving and sending, where does the non-compliance part step in. I think we are focusing on the wrong thing here, the issue is why do they demand usage of "their software"? Is it just to data mine, or are their "other reasons"?

I don't know if the conversion renders a report noncompliant. But, from the statements that were made it appears that this is implied in this thread and others I have read about AIready conversions. I just surmised a strategy to fight the conversion process rather than spending the next 20 years trying to work through the hoops and loops the bureaucracy has built in. Force the issue, litigate.

 

[Joyce Potts]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,
What is so hard to understand about Cert. 21??? The client can distribute the reports to a data collection agency. However, NO ONE has permission, implied or direct, to distribute or disclose to a third party. FURTHER, my permission is required PRIOR to disclosure or DISTRIBUTION through "other media". Anyone ever heard of the Internet?
Cert 24 states that the report I delivered as an "electronic record" shall be "effective, enforceable, and valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature."
How many of you people have been in this business long enough to remember gettin in your freaking car and HAND DELIVERING reports???? I bet not too many of you here.
This clause refers to the fact that because I have chosen to take advantage of the speed, ease, cost effectiveness, etc. of electronic delivery....what I deliver is ASSUMED and CONSIDERED to be EQUAL to a paper, hand-delivered original. END of Discussion.
How would any of you feel if your hand delivered copies were whited out, addendums removed, photos removed, and signature manipulated AFTER you delivered. SAME THING. FRAUD, plain and simple. Do not let the special interest groups scatter your brains.
The above is all my opinion, and opinions are like rear ends,,,,,,everyone has one...HOWEVER, mine comes with 36 years of experience, honesty, and dedication to the profession.
I am tired of all the BS about USPAP says all these 3rd parties can alter my report. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS> Trust me.....
I do agree we do not need new regulations....enforce what Fannie and Freddie and USPAP and the States already have and this will cease.
NEVER FORGET ONE QUESTION....WHO DOES IT BENEFIT IN THIS ENTIRE EPISODE...FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!???!!!???!

The general public? Are you suggesting this method isn't about consumer protection?

The better question is--why isn't it about consumer protection first?

 

[c w d]

"Consumer Protection" is a feel good phrase that imparts to the consumer that someone is looking out for them when in fact they're being screwed. It really doesn't have anything to do with protecting the consumer. It's more like blinders on a service animal so it can't see what's coming.

 

[Don Clark]

[/b]

The general public? Are you suggesting this method isn't about consumer protection?

The better question is--why isn't it about consumer protection first?

First of all, Perry Turner is a member of the Virginia Real Estate Appraisal Board. he has served as Chairman in the past, and is on his second appointment to the board. If my memory serves me correctly, when i attended the Appraisal Board meeting where George dodd presented his petition, Mr. turner was the first to recognize it's validity. I believe that the petition IS all about protection of the public by making sure that the appraisal report than an appraiser completes is the same report that is delivered to the client, not some scum bag twit in between the appraiser and the client.

My friend George Dodd has it right in the petition.

As to restraint of trade, all states have the right to approve or disapprove any business from doing business within a state if the violate state laws or regulations. One of the things the Virginia board is doing, based on what I saw and heard at the last board meeting, is looking at whether or not mortgage lenders are approved in Virginia or not or are a Federally Regulated Financial Institution doing business in Virginia. Requiring state or federal approval IMNSHO is not restraint of trade.

I applaud Gerorge Dodd in his efforts, and Perry Turner and the rest of the Virginia Real Estate Appraisal Board for their efforts to protect both the APPRAISER and the PUBLIC.