• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joyce Potts said:
Ironic, coming from someone who served and chaired the ASB, yet also a paid ZAIO consultant.
Click to expand...
Not even 1/1,000 as ironic as you on CBS squawking about inflated appraisals.
 
Joyce Potts said:
Ok--when you served on the ASB did you ever participate in discussions involving effective vs. inspection dates?
Click to expand...

Since the effective date is one of the six major elements in problem identification, the ASB discussed it often while I was a member.

There is nothing in USPAP about the inspection date (that is a Fannie Mae thing), and I don't recall the Board ever discussing it.

You seem to be hung up on the theory that Z got something changed in USPAP to allow it to "get away with" using an effective date that was different from the inspection date, but nothing in USPAP has ever required those dates to be the same.

This is flat out NOT about FNC
Click to expand...

Now THAT was funny. Not coffee on the shirt funny, but funny. And just what percentage of the posts in this thread have not been about AppraisalPort and/or AIReady?
 
DWiley said:
I think Fannie weighed in on the issue when they began requiring AIReady for certain assignments. What is it about AIReady conversion that you think is contrary to Fannie's position about the forms?

I have posted parts of forms, including the certification. What do you see that is unacceptable?
Click to expand...

Danny

they also weighed in again by suspending use of AIport in one of there other divisions because of the changes and omissions AIport was doing to the reports during conversion.

The software conversion is flawed in some way apprently and is not liked by but a small handful of appraisers.
 
Carnivore said:
Danny

they also weighed in again by suspending use of AIport in one of there other divisions because of the changes and omissions AIport was doing to the reports during conversion.

The software conversion is flawed in some way apprently and is not liked by but a small handful of appraisers.
Click to expand...

Hopefully this will be my final comment on this subject.

Whether or not Mr. Turner or any other member of the Virginia Real Estate Appraisal Board has a conflict of interest will need to be decided by the Appraisal Board or the AAG who advises the board.

I will comply with whatever the Virginia Real Estate Appraisal Board decides I must do to comply with state law or regulation.

There has been enough mud slung already and I don't need to participate any further in this decussion. Not referring to what you have posted in the quote Carney, but to the general tone of what some have posted.
 
Carnivore said:
... is not liked by but a small handful of appraisers.
Click to expand...

I don't know any appraisers that really like it. I don't. Like others, I prefer more control over the presentation. However, there is a BIG difference between not liking something and saying it forces appraisers to violate USPAP.

I have many clients that use AppraisalPort. Only one requires use of AIReady format, and that is the only one I use it for. Over 99% of the reports we have sent through AP have been in PDF format.

I have said all along my concern is not with AIReady itself. My concern is with rules (like those proposed in Georgia) which are aimed at AIReady but end up applying to other formats.

Someone said earlier that this is drawing to an end. I could not disagree more. If state boards start (or try to start) regulating delivery systems (be it portals, e-mail, snail mail, curriers, etc.) whatever happens in VA will only be the opening salvo.
 
DWiley said:
Since the effective date is one of the six major elements in problem identification, the ASB discussed it often while I was a member.

There is nothing in USPAP about the inspection date (that is a Fannie Mae thing), and I don't recall the Board ever discussing it.

You seem to be hung up on the theory that Z got something changed in USPAP to allow it to "get away with" using an effective date that was different from the inspection date, but nothing in USPAP has ever required those dates to be the same.

Now THAT was funny. Not coffee on the shirt funny, but funny. And just what percentage of the posts in this thread have not been about AppraisalPort and/or AIReady?
Click to expand...

How about eAppraiseIT and Zaio for starters.

How about re-defining or getting the terms inspected vs. effective 'clarified'. Or determining that this issue is not under the jurisdiction of USPAP, in and of itself, would be quite favorable to Zaio, don't you think?

My so called 'hang up' is a direct result of personal conversations with Ken Verrett, whom I'm sure you're acquainted with, correct?

You know what I find even more disturbing than coffee on the shirt--

After serving on multiple city, county and non-profits for the past 18 years here in Florida, I can honestly tell you that while my votes were often sought after by developers and other real estate related companies, I never once became a paid "anything" for any of those companies after my tenure was up. Nor did I seek to purchase property in areas where my vote may have determined future growth, condemnation, land use changes, etc.

The appearance of impropriety or favoritism even after the fact, while not technically a conflict of interest, was simply not something I wanted to project. I liken it to past presidents of AI now in paid positions for Zaio. It's not illegal, but for many, it raises some genuine concerns.

And while your attempts to circumvent and re-direct the real issue of AMC's, their delivery systems, AI Ready, altering of reports, etc., please take note, MOST aren't buying it Danny.

Mr. Turner's involvement with a lawsuit involving a single AMC vs. his long standing public service both real estate and community related boards and committees is quite a leap.

Knowing Mr. Turner as I do, I can just about guarantee that his opinions and concerns over what's going on would still be in place with or without any lawsuit. As it should be.
 
A little off topic, but you know what is really great about FL's licensing data and related license data? It is really detailed. It even reports the number of trainees a CR supervises. And it is all available on-line for the world to verify.

https://www.myfloridalicense.com/wl11.asp?mode=0&SID=
 
Joyce Potts said:
How about re-defining or getting the terms inspected vs. effective 'clarified'.
Click to expand...

Since USPAP contains no definition of inspection, inspection date, or effective date, how could those terms be re-defined?

I have asked you on multiple occasions exactly what it is you think was changed, and I have asked you to contact me so I could get a better understanding of what it is you think happened. You have not done either of those things.

I am perfectly willing to talk openly with you about anything you wish. I have sent you my contact info on multiple occasions.

with Kxx Vxxxxxx, whom I'm sure you're acquainted with, correct?
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not correct. I am not acquainted him at all. My only knowledge of him is from his posts here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top