When is a Review Required to meet Std 3?

[Evincere]

That's what I mean - a bit vague. Don't disagree with that at all, though. Just not sure what context the 'disagreement' was.

B- Disagreed with my Cost Approach of site contributions of $55,000. And yes, I included support for my estimated vacant site value via allocation

.

Reads like land value. OP?

 

[Joyce Potts]

Well, not quite. Asking for clarification is one thing..disagreeing Outright with demonstrated support that was included in the report is ...not the same.

She said my contributory value of site improvements of $55,000 too low. If that's not opining, I don't know what is.

 

[Evincere]

She said my contributory value of $55,000 too low. If that's not opining, I don't know what is.

I agree

 

[Joyce Potts]

Well, not quite. Asking for clarification is one thing..disagreeing Outright with demonstrated support that was included in the report is ...not the same.

No where did her e-mail ask me for additional information, clarification or additional support. She made the succinct call on all the issues. She told me to remove information pertaining to high-end homes in this market not recovering to their peak selling prices during the 2005-2007 Bubble. As support, I provided the subject's own MLS listing and tax records of the deeds that made the subject property the 'poster' child for my ASSIGNMENT RESULT.

 

[glenn walker]

The question is do you want to battle this or suck it up and have a good 2020 and take the MAI advice ? Its done you don't have to deal with it ? Or do you want to prove a point and go down in flames - Because based on th talking points from the SRA and MAI you are toast !!! You have to prove your adjustments, cost approach and other things and you will not prevail until they have worn you down. Like I said you got a free pass when the MAI said no big deal its done and funded - So why would continue to make a case. MOVE on and enjoy 2020 and let it GO : ) LOL

 

[Evincere]

The question is do you want to battle this or suck it up and have a good 2020 and take the MAI advice ? Its done you don't have to deal with it ? Or do you want to prove a point and go down in flames - Because based on th talking points from the SRA and MAI you are toast !!! You have to prove your adjustments, cost approach and other things and you will not prevail until they have worn you down. Like I said you got a free pass when the MAI said no big deal its done and funded - So why would continue to make a case. MOVE on and enjoy 2020 and let it GO : ) LOL

me thinks you missed the point. The OP is asking Propriety questions re USPAP review standards. And I’ve no doubt whatsoever that if the OP was or is intending to take the issues to the mat, the reviewer should prepare to gird her loins.

 

[alebrewer]

So the OP is unsure if a formal reviw was ever performed or delivered, and is taking issue w the fact that someone queationed her 'site contributions' value - still not even sure what that is - site improvements or site value? Regardless, while it might technically fall into the standards realm, is that really cause for filing a claim w her board? Seems to me that, if it were a Realtor filing the claim, everyone would be up in arms about how flimsy the claim is. That its a fellow appraiser - however dumb the statement was, is still pushing the flimsy complaint issue - if the OPs intent is to move forward w a complaint.

 

[Mr Rex]

 

[Basically Rectangular]

It kind of is relevant because a reviewer can influence an outcome, so if the reviewer is suggesting the site value is incorrect (which implies changing it), they should provide evidence to the appraiser who is going to either apply that change or not (since they are signing the report).
Going to the state with this seems a bit much, but a conversation with the supervisor in charge of this reviewer does not, especially if this is standard practice.

 

[alebrewer]

Going to the state with this seems a bit much, but a conversation with the supervisor in charge of this reviewer does not, especially if this is standard practice.

Even having a conversation with the reviewer, and explaining the error of her ways seems appropriate. I'd 10 times rather engage an appraiser privately to try to effect positive change, than turn someone in over dumb stuff. And vice-versa. I'd 10 times rather someone engage me over issues they think might be potential violations, rather than turning me in over dumb stuff...