Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[TJSum]

Excellent post as usual George. Just to clarify, I am not accusing them of affixing our signatures to new documents. I am asking how Conservative of Virginia's post can be completely true without doing this, unless they are making loans on "mish mashes" appraisal docs with no signatures ???

"the software 'mish mashes' (my word for lack of better) all the data into a computer generated sheet and that is ALL the lenders want to see"

 

[Couch Potato]

Excellent post as usual George. Just to clarify, I am not accusing them of affixing our signatures to new documents. I am asking how Conservative of Virginia's post can be completely true without doing this, unless they are making loans on "mish mashes" appraisal docs with no signatures ???

"the software 'mish mashes' (my word for lack of better) all the data into a computer generated sheet and that is ALL the lenders want to see"

Just because an appraisal report contains a signature, does not mean the signature needs to be visible to the client. They don't care who did the report, it is irrelevant to the lending decision. Their software confirmed the report was signed by a licensed appraiser when it was accepted into the system, why would they need to see a signature?

All they need is some of the data in the report in order to make a decision. Such actions show they have a high degree of trust in appraisers. (Granted that trust might be misplaced.) You don't think anyone reads that finely crafted three pages of comments do you?

They hire a licensed appraiser who they trust to give them a report with a credible opinion of value. Software is use to process the report and spot obvious errors or points that need comments. Occasionally someone will look to see if a comment already exists, but typically they assume it does not and just request it be added. (Only in reports with issues are comments going to be read.) When the software does not find a problem, a human then looks at a small part of the data, the opinion of value, and decides to make or not make a loan. In a large lender, you will not find anyone with a printed residential appraisal reading through it as they drink a cup of coffee. Real scrutiny of an appraisal report is reserved for those time when the loan goes south.

 

[Ken B]

Excellent post as usual George. Just to clarify, I am not accusing them of affixing our signatures to new documents. I am asking how Conservative of Virginia's post can be completely true without doing this, unless they are making loans on "mish mashes" appraisal docs with no signatures ???

"the software 'mish mashes' (my word for lack of better) all the data into a computer generated sheet and that is ALL the lenders want to see"

I found it a little peculiar that CofV reputedly relayed a conversation he/she was having with someone else, but found it necessary to use a term which has little meaning due to a lack of a better word. Why not use the words reportedly stated by the other party?

 

[Marcia Langley]

One of my sticking points is described this way:



My client (who is an interested party to the mortgage transaction) has made it a condition of engagement that I add imbedded objects to my electronic report file prior to transmission.

I have no way of knowing what all of those imbedded objects do. One thing I am sure of is that on the client-supplied viewer I use after these objects are imbedded, and before transmission, the screen shot of my electronic report is "different" from before.

Another thing I am sure of is that the client has access to a viewer that is different than the one they supplied to me.

I have no way of knowing whether the required imbedded objects make material changes to my report as it is viewed by the client on his "different" viewer.

My client assures me that their required imbedded objects have not added, subtracted, or changed anything to my electronic report that would render my report to be not in compliance with USPAP. But all I have is my client's assurance, I have no personal knowledge that it is true. and I have no way to gain that personal knowledge.

IF it were to happen that the client-required imbedded objects caused my report to fall out of USPAP compliance, would I be held responsible for that?

Can the appraiser be held responsible for USPAP violations even if he has no proof prior to transmission that they will occur for a fact?

Can the appraiser be held responsible for a USPAP violation on the grounds that he blindly used an interested-party, client-required, object imbedding system without knowing or understanding what it did?

===========

===========

As a seperate issue, I have no way of knowing whether those client-required imbedded objects increase my liability by making me complicit in actions that I know nothing about nor understand. After compliance with the USPAP minimums, liability issues are up to the individual appraiser. Any appraiser who is concerned about controlling his liability should be concerned about this issue.

 

[Ken B]

If you fax a report and the platen assembly is dirty, dark streaks will become "imbedded" in the report.

Has your report been compromised?

One of my sticking points is described this way:



My client (who is an interested party to the mortgage transaction) has made it a condition of engagement that I add imbedded objects to my electronic report file prior to transmission.

I have no way of knowing what all of those imbedded objects do. One thing I am sure of is that on the client-supplied viewer I use after these objects are imbedded, and before transmission, the screen shot of my electronic report is "different" from before.

Another thing I am sure of is that the client has access to a viewer that is different than the one they supplied to me.

I have no way of knowing whether the required imbedded objects make material changes to my report.

My client assures me that their required imbedded objects have not added, subtracted, or changed anything to my electronic report that would render my report to be not in compliance with USPAP. But all I have is my client's assurance, I have no personal knowledge that it is true. and I have no way to gain that personal knowledge.

IF it were to happen that the client-required imbedded objects caused my report to fall out of USPAP compliance, would I be held responsible for that?

Can the appraiser be held responsible for USPAP violations even if he has no proof prior to transmission that they will occur for a fact?

Can the appraiser be held responsible for a USPAP violation on the grounds that he blindly used an interested-party, client-required, object imbedding system without knowing or understanding what it did?

===========

===========

As a seperate issue, I have no way of knowing whether those client-required imbedded objects increase my liability by making me complicit in actions that I know nothing about nor understand. After compliance with the USPAP minimums, liability issues are up to the individual appraiser. Any appraiser who is concerned about controlling his liability should be concerned about this issue.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Kenneth,

The core of my post was that I had personally changed my report in ways that I could not document or know, or understand.

A streaky printer at the client's end is not a result of something I personally did to my report as an assignment condition.

===

My point is that is it enough to ask for proof that any USPAP violations have occured in the past?

Or is it equally important to ask if the appraiser knows before transmission that no USPAP violations are imbedded in the report.

 

[Ken B]

The streaks are not created at by the receiver's printer. They are created by your fax machine. You delivered a report which contained streaks. You may not have been aware that the streaks were being imbedded. Have you violated USPAP because you were not completely aware of exactly what you were delivering to the client?

What would it take for you to be confident in your knowledge that no USPAP violations are imbedded in the report?

Is the opinion of a reasonable person adequate?

Is a statement from the software developer adequate?

Will you need to get a degree in computer programming so that you can disassemble and study the source code?

 

[DWiley]

Or is it equally important to ask if the appraiser knows before transmission that no USPAP violations are imbedded in the report.

And what about imbedded objects in Word files, PDFs, Excel files, etc.?Does it come down to the fact that you trust Microsoft, Adobe, et al, and you just don't trust FNC?

If you want to see the embedded objects, then you will need far more computer training that most appraisers have.

 

[Ken B]

To tell you the truth I am having difficulty understanding exactly what kind of information may be imbedded in the information I deliver via an electronic portal which could violate USPAP.

I cannot imagine that the Record Keeping requirement is intended to punish an appraiser because some code may be added to an electronically delivered report which is not contained in the workfile copy. These concerns are not those of a reasonable person.

 

[Ken B]

Danny makes a good point. When I create a Word file, information is imbedded in that file identifying the date it was created, who created it, the time it was modified, etc.

That information is not contained in the visible portions of my report. Am I in violation of USPAP because I deliver the file to a client and am not aware of that information?

Silliness.