When is a Review Required to meet Std 3?

[Pittsburgh Pete]

And FAQs are NOT USPAP

Read page 1 of USPAP.

.

And reread the definition of "report."

 

[Meandering]

Also - may want to check into getting a new keyboard - looks like the question mark key gets stuck sometimes.

I have a dead finger and have to lift it with other fingers sometimes.

I'd tell you how that happened, but I don't want to break forum rules.

.

 

[alebrewer]

I have a dead finger and have to lift it with other fingers sometimes.

I'm no doctor, but might want to get that checked as well.

 

[Meandering]

I'm no doctor, but might want to get that checked as well.

Let''s check you.

Why do you cite FAQs as if they were USPAP?

And why, is the "review NOT a "review"?

It is appraisal practice by a licensed appraiser who called it a review.

It definitely is appraisal practice, but not necessarily appraisal review... depends on the extent of the review. FAQ 335 may offer some guidance on that issue. However, even if it is determined that the service is not a review (e.g. if the 'reviewer' is simply checking for consistency, spelling, etc., if it is appraisal practice, it has to conform to relevant sections of USPAP.

Perhaps you need the doctor.

Happens to some people in the industry too long.

.

 

[Joyce Potts]

The way I read your explanation was that the reviewer sent you the email. You did not indicate nor do I assume that they sent that to the lender. Maybe they did, I don't know.

If that's all they sent to their client then I'd agree that's a problem due to errors and omissions in their reporting. But for all you know they may NOT have done that. They might not even have sent any appraisal review report at all to their client. Or, they might have sent an SR3/SR4 report in either with or without the email content. You are apparently assuming all they sent their client was that email, and your assumption may be correct because there are stupid people out there.

In the abstract, me sending you that email can be argued to be part of my SOW as a reviewer if my assignment includes instructions to contact you and resolve any issues. How else could I meet that element of my development without discussing it with you?

Now as a matter of style I avoid committing to any opinions or conclusions other than what i can point to as a fact. An example would be if I pointed out a math error or an apparent inconsistency, or if I noted the omission of some element of your assignment such as you not providing an "as is" or an insurable value. Those aren't necessarily opinions and such. But even if it is a matter of opinion, if I express an interim opinion to you in such an exchange does that really amount to my assignment results?

I guess I'm asking where you think the dividing line is between me interacting with the appraiser during the course of developing my SOW as a reviewer vs me conveying to my client the results of my assignment?

George, they sent the review to both me and copied several people at the lender. That's all they sent me.

When I went over her head to the chief MAI appraiser he did NOT indicate any other undelivered reviews, even when I asked if there were any. Was that it? He said yes. Again, I have no problem with mistakes or disputes over facts. What I take issue with is opining to the development and reporting of several elements of my appraisal that are market specific and clearly MY assignment results.

Why am I subject to USPAP, but this fee reviewer from another state, not?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Do the steps one takes in preparing a report have to comply with USPAP or does the final report submitted to the client have to comply with USPAP?

 

[Joyce Potts]

I see the state licensing issue and who has jurisdiction over this individual's actions as being separate from the question of what is/isn't an appraisal review report.

Would be obligated to comply with USPAP in the report they submit to their client. But as George has pointed out (twice) the interaction with you is not the appraisal review report.

If your beef were legitimate, the entire review staff at Penndot and their independent reviewers would run afoul of USPAP. However, they ultimately submit a review to their client, Penndot. Their correspondence with me is not the final review report, or a report in any sense.

Like I said, we all know this happens thousands of times per day, nationwide. If the overwhelming majority of appraisers cant' agree on HBU, or the definition of arm's-length transaction, what makes any of us think they have a working knowledge of what rises to the level of Std 3 review, or should rise to a Std 3 review?

And while the jurisdiction is a separate issue, it's tied in the 'inappropriate' review, in fact, may be the bigger issue.

 

[Meandering]

And reread the definition of "report."

STANDARD 3: APPRAISAL REVIEW, DEVELOPMENT
In developing an appraisal review, an appraiser must identify the problem to be solved, determine the scope of work necessary to solve the problem, and correctly complete research and analyses necessary to produce a credible appraisal review.

Disagree with the site value,
where is the research and analyses?

STANDARDS RULE 3-3, Appraisal Review Methods
In developing an appraisal review, a reviewer must apply the appraisal review methods and techniques that are necessary for credible assignment results.
(a) When necessary for credible assignment results in the review
(iii) develop the reasons for any disagreement.

Not, I disagree.

.

 

[alebrewer]

Why do you cite FAQs as if they were USPAP?

Please direct me to my citation stating that FAQ were part of USPAP, please. I think if you'll re-read the statement, you'll find that I said the FAQ 'might offer guidance on the issue' - which is EXACTLY the purpose of the FAQ (just in case you weren't aware).

And why, is the "review NOT a "review"?

If the person who called the OP was simply discussing items needed for correction (there was actually no mention by the OP that an S3 review had ever been submitted), my own personal opinion is that would not fall under the auspices of S3/S4. It's ok if you disagree, however. We do live in the U.S. after all. Back to FAQ 335 (and I already know your thoughts on the FAQ's, so you don't have to re-post), part of the features of an appraisal review are that, "The work under review was performed as part of an appraisal or appraisal review assignment." (bold added by me) Again, though, we'd probably need more context around what the OP and/or person on the other end of the phone meant when she said she was engaged to 'review' the appraisal.

Perhaps you need the doctor.

There is absulutely no doubt about that - but for different reasons than having a 'dead finger'.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

What Joyce received was not the appraisal review. It was one of the steps the reviewer undertook in preparing the review.