Wells Fargo RVS Desktop

[Brian Weaver]

A series of significant test cases are headed to formal hearing very soon. Very significant.

 

[LI-Appr]

There are two things which I see happening in the near future which will draw a line in the sand and end all of this foolishness:

1. A test case will be brought before the Illinois Board and the unwitting appraiser will be so severely punished that the rest of our profession will take notice of the consequences and stop doing these ridiculous assignments. Possible candidates include those completing the above mentioned noncredible restrictive assignments, licensed appraisers completing BPOs (inluding their license number and E&O information), or a branch manager of one of the national shops who continue to run stables of licensed and unlicensed trainees well beyond what current licensing laws and common sense allow.

2. Actual civil disobedience on the part of appraisers whose livelihood has been taken away by recent developments in our industry. Potential targets include showing up at Mr Cuomo's office, or that of Fannie ot Freddie for that matter, and refusing to leave until allowed to file a complaint with the yet nonexistent IVPI, filing suit against TAVMA for violation of the Sherman Act, or a class action suit against Chase or Wells brought by all of the appraisers on their "exclusionary" list.

Here's hoping, anyway.

I vote for #2 above. All of it.m2:m2:

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Brian, you are one of my Heros!

 

[ddnma]

The EA is burned into their form. So, even if you ignore the EA and report what's there...they could make the leap that you've violated their Minimum Requirements and that triggers a "No Hit".

Not liking this form or their instructions. Do you?

I haven't taken the time to go through the form with a fine tooth comb however, I understand the need for desktop products in "certain" situations. But in the example you gave:
“So, if the subject property is located in Hartford, Illinois where four million gallons of gasoline have seeped into the ground, creating a widely known underground plume, then the extraordinary assumption appears to be a silver bullet, right?...An appraiser relying on the EA for the Hartford example would be subject to discipline…”
The form states that unless otherwise noted in the report... well, what if you state what you know about Hartford...etc... you may still have a hit.

In the lending/appraisal world, one size does not always fit... if you have a conforming home in one of the many tract subdivisions around Chicago, there is no need for a full narrative. Conversely, if you have a dual geodesic dome in unincorporated St. Charles, a desktop appraisal is not the correct choice-unless you have appraised that house recently etc....

 

[dobie]

There are two things which I see happening in the near future which will draw a line in the sand and end all of this foolishness:
1.<snip>

2. Actual civil disobedience on the part of appraisers whose livelihood has been taken away by recent developments in our industry. Potential targets include showing up at Mr Cuomo's office, or that of Fannie ot Freddie for that matter, and refusing to leave until allowed to file a complaint with the yet nonexistent IVPI, filing suit against TAVMA for violation of the Sherman Act, or a class action suit against Chase or Wells brought by all of the appraisers on their "exclusionary" list.

Here's hoping, anyway.

"Civil disobedience" and "appraisers" in the same sentence. Ha ha, good one.

 

[Brian Weaver]

If you plan on doing this assignment...you'd better take the time to read the form that's being presented.
I'm not telling Illinois appraisers not to take these assignments...just to be mindful of what the risks are.
This is a desktop assignment. Nowhere in the form does it state that the appraiser inspected the subject or comparables other than through available data sources. USPAP neither suggests or requires an inspection of the subject or comparables. In fact, item 8 states that "I, nor anyone else that signed this certification, did not inspect the interior or exterior of the subject real property of the report unless otherwise noted."
Wells is assuming that you're not going anywhere but to the world wide web. They're making it the appraiser's call on whether or not to make this a drive-by. Either way...the fee is the fee.
However....the very first line in the appraiser's certification states:
"The facts and data reported by the appraiser and used in the appraisal process are true and correct."
This means that your liability is precisely the same as if you had completed an inspection and drove the sales.
Appraisers need to understand that some clients still think we're in the paper business. The less they have to read; the less you have to do; the less they have pay.
The homework is the same.
So...if you miss that Hartford is an EPA disaster; you'll have a problem. If the assessor states that the house is 1,200 Sq.Ft. and its really 2,000 Sq.Ft. because of a new addition that wasn't reported; you'll have a problem. If you miss the fact that your highrise condo doesn't face Lake Michigan but faces the brick wall to the west; you'll have a problem.
You won't be able to garner sympathy from the board because "they're only paying $55 and and they didn't require an inspection."
Roll the dice and take your chances. All I'm doing is pointing out what could happen before the dice leave your hand.

 

[Michigan CG]

This is from the other thread on this issue:

They pay $55 and expect you to give three comps with no adjustments and state a value.

I would think in order to be USPAP compliant it would require a pretty detailed work file showing how the appraiser came up with this value without showing adjustments.

..........."The facts and data reported by the appraiser and used in the appraisal process are true and correct."
This means that your liability is precisely the same as if you had completed an inspection and drove the sales............................
So...if you miss that Hartford is an EPA disaster; you'll have a problem. If the assessor states that the house is 1,200 Sq.Ft. and its really 2,000 Sq.Ft. because of a new addition that wasn't reported; you'll have a problem. If you miss the fact that your highrise condo doesn't face Lake Michigan but faces the brick wall to the west; you'll have a problem.

Could it be that they did this on purpose; after all appraisers do have E and O?

 

[Brian Weaver]

Maybe.

Clients live in Standard 2 land. They live on what the report says. They pay based on how much reading they think they're in for.

Appraisers live in Standard 1 & Standard 2 lands. Its the development of the appraisal that takes the most time and energy...not filling out a form and hitting "send".

 

[ddnma]

If you plan on doing this assignment...you'd better take the time to read the form that's being presented.... If the assessor states that the house is 1,200 Sq.Ft. and its really 2,000 Sq.Ft. because of a new addition that wasn't reported; you'll have a problem....

The same thing can happen on a drive-by, or a similar item on a full interior- say if the basement wall has a big crack and it was covered with paneling. There are some things you cannot know no matter how detailed the inspection. Appraisers have to make extraordinary assumptions about some items.

How far are you recommending appraisers go to verify all information? Where does it end? Do you recommend that appraisers go beyond what is written in USPAP?

Not trying to be argumentative with you Brian, well maybe a little :icon_lol:
Really though, a careful SOW while following USPAP allows appraisers to do a lot. Where a lot of appraisers get into problems is letting client imposed assignment conditions affect their process AND not knowing what USPAP allows and does not allow...which is what I think you were trying to warn appraisers about with this particular form. I do appreciate it. Thanks for being on here for guidance.

 

[athome77]

Having just gone 15 rounds with Freddie Mac on a buy back of a GMAC loan that I happened to be the appraiser for, I can tell all who care to listen that there is no boiler plate language and no stament of limiting conditions which can protect an appraiser (or an incompetent, openly biased out of state review appraiser) if they choose not to use common sense.

"Appraising" a property for $55, regardless of the "protection" provided by the USPAP contradictory statements printed in the client specific form, just does not make sense.

Every time we appraise a property we are risking our license, our reputation, and our livelihood.

$55 doesn't seem to be reasonable compensation, no matter how you look at it.