I am looking at a field review sent by an MI company to rescind MI coverage. I have never seen a review such as this. The reviewer states the appraiser did not use the most locationlly, physically, and functionally similar comps. The reviewer also states the appraiser's adjustments are incorrect. However, the reviewer did not provide any other comps and did not grid the original comps with what he might consider correct adjustments, but agrees with the appraiser's opinion of value. So coverage is being rescinded based on USPAP non-compliance.
Has any of you ever completed a review this way?
Kind of, but for a different a different intended use. And, in my case, I did not have to agree with the original appraisal's value conclusion.
If what you are describing is what you see, it sounds to me like the reviewer was completing a restricted-use report
or maybe you don't have a copy of the complete report.
SOW and the reviewer's assignment-engagement requirements clarifies what is done and how it is to be communicated.
For your specific, I'm sure MI companies, in their insurance-underwriting process, require that appraisals used for loan approval must be compliant with USPAP. Some issues may be cut and dry and some issues may not be so clear-cut (one just has to read this forum to see how appraisers disagree on the interpretation and application of USPAP).
The "non-compliance of USPAP" is a pretty wide net. Again, we've seen posts by forumites of state board conclusions regarding USPAP violations which few on this forum agree.
So, on the surface, what you are presenting doesn't ring any alarm bells with me. Whether the review itself is USPAP compliant is another issue; to answer that question, you will have to provide more information (if you have it). :new_smile-l:
