What's with this?

[Reelestate]

I have a lender that says that this statement must appear in report. Isn't this already covered, and where do you put it?

"THE INTENDED USER OF THIS APPRAISAL REPORT IS THE LENDER/CLIENT. THE INTENDED USE IS TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPRAISAL FOR A MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, SUBJECT TO THE STATED SCOPE OF WORK, PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS APPRAISAL REPORT FORM, AND DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE. NO ADDITIONAL INTENDED USERS ARE IDENTIFIED BY THIS APPRAISER."

 

[CANative]

That's probably BofA. They want that specific statement and they want it on it's own addendum page. They think it is a Fannie required statement instead of compromise language Fannie agreed to.

As to the issue of included additional, unnecessary pages and addendums I think it's mostly because many appraisers work by themselves in caves. I might be making the same mistakes if I didn't keep myself updated by being active in this forum.

 

[hastalavista]

Actually it does. When there are two completely different signed certifications in the report, which one rules?

In litigation matters, I've argued that the current one rules.

 

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

In litigation matters, I've argued that the current one rules.

Of course it does. I asked that rhetorically to demonstrate the confusion it may cause in the marketplace.

 

[hastalavista]

Of course it does. I asked that rhetorically to demonstrate the confusion it may cause in the marketplace.

Dave-

I think it is fair to say that the nuance of the rhetorical question (which I did get) is lost on many who don't understand what the purpose of the certification is and what the differences are between the two certifications included in your example; this is evidenced by your example, and countless others that reviewers continually see when reviewing reports.

This inconsistency can be underscored and emphasized when put into the terms of what results when such reports make it a litigation or mediation stage. When litigation or mediating an issue, much of the argument is about appraiser competency, what is typical and standard in the industry, and finally the overall credibility of the assignment results. Inconsistencies such as two different certifications undermines an appraiser's claim of competency and is counter to the standards; these inconsistencies, cumulatively, do much to weaken the credibility of the process used to obtain the results.
You know this (and I know you know this!); many others may not realize it without it being plainly stated.:new_smile-l:

 

[CindyR]

In litigation matters, I've argued that the current one rules.

In a typical report both (or all) of the certifications are signed on the same day and at the same time. I don't think I am comfortable with assuming one is more current than the other based on the effective date of the form or some revision date entered by the software vendor. The appraiser says "I am certifying all these things" and if he/she was too stupid to read them and they contradict one another that is just a problem for someone to resolve.

 

[hastalavista]

The appraiser says "I am certifying all these things" and if he/she was too stupid to read them and they contradict one another that is just a problem for someone to resolve.

(my bold)

I said

When litigation or mediating an issue, much of the argument is about appraiser competency, what is typical and standard in the industry, and finally the overall credibility of the assignment results. Inconsistencies such as two different certifications undermines an appraiser's claim of competency and is counter to the standards; these inconsistencies, cumulatively, do much to weaken the credibility of the process used to obtain the results.

The someone who is going to resolve the problem (if it is a judge or mediator) is not likely to resolve the matter in favor of stupidity over expected competency.

I don't think I am comfortable with assuming one is more current than the other based on the effective date of the form or some revision date entered by the software vendor.

(my bold)

I can improve your comfort level if we are talking about mortgage finance transaction appraisals that are required to be completed to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac guidelines.
You can go onto those agencies' websites and see their regulations- they'll confirm without a doubt which certification they require, and also that the one they require allows for no modifications, additions or alterations; making a second certification redundant at best and contradictory at worst.

Of course, if you think that's wrong, we can agree to disagree. :new_smile-l:

 

[Fred]

(my bold)The someone who is going to resolve the problem (if it is a judge or mediator) is not likely to resolve the matter in favor of stupidity over expected competency.

From what I have seen, those people are pretty good at moving right past clerical error and focusing and the main points of the valuation. They are used to amended and appended documents resulting from the clerical errors caused by deadlines.

 

[hastalavista]

From what I have seen, those people are pretty good at moving right past clerical error and focusing and the main points of the valuation. They are used to amended and appended documents resulting from the clerical errors caused by deadlines.

Steven-

I would agree with you that clerical errors may not be significant in and by themselves.

But what would be your opinion of the reaction of a decision-make (judge, arbitrator, etc.) if, when asking an appraiser why there were two contradictory certifications in the report, the response was either:
A: "I don't know; is that a problem?"
or
B: "Do I have to answer that? Can't someone else decide?"

Because Cindy's point (as I understood it) is the two-certifications were not due to clerical error, but to stupidity or an attitude of "that is just a problem for someone to resolve."

 

[Fred]

We are all stupid enough to make those mistakes. Often there is something in your template that perhaps has been carried forward due to electronic word processing for ten years before someone finds it. If you are working expert witness, there are several ways to downplay it.