Who's Right?

[GeorgiaBoy]

Steven,

I was trying to keep my arguments concise and and not completely retype AO-20. But I'm a patient man so I'm gonna try again. AO-20 states:

Lines 170-172

"Illustration of the Language in an Appraisal Review WITHOUT an Opinion of Value

The following are examples of language that might be used in an appraisal review report that does not express an opinion of value and thus does not constitute evidence of an appraisal by the reviewer:"

Lines 173-186 contain seven examples of statements that fit the above category. The two examples that I used are quoted directly from those seven examples.

Now in your examination of USPAP itself you may come to the conclusion that it in some way conflicts with the AO. But nonetheless, the AO says what the AO says and as such is the opinion of the ASB. I have done nothing but QUOTE the opinion contained in the AO. You have done nothing but argue against that opinion. Like I said "Santora vs. ASB"

Man this is fun. This place is an appraisers dream My brothers an appraiser too and we would argue about the fastest way to get to the end of a one way street.

 

[Fred]

Brian writes,
My brothers an appraiser too and we would argue about the fastest way to get to the end of a one way street.
Which end?

There is an old movie called "INC." The Rick Morannis character is on the phone arguing, "I didn't MAKE that decision. I only APPROVED that decision. I would NEVER make a decision like that."

[Brian] The two examples that I used are quoted directly from those seven examples.
Yes they are and this shows why I haven't missed anything by not reading AO's. To some extent this is ASB vs. ASB. The good advice of lines 174-179 is contradicted by the bad advice of line 183. However, it is still not me-versus-them because I left the option open. I wrote that a person reading a reveiw statement that a 'value conlusion is "apropriate and reasonable" is free to interpret that these adjectives both "imply" expressing a separate opinion and "signify concurence." If this point were litigated, a court or jury could easily find that saying something is "reasonable" and "appropriate" is "conurrence."

You are correct that the ASB does not interpret it that way. To be honest, I am a little surprised by them taking the Rich Moranis view that "I didn't concur with that appraisal, I only said that appraisal was reasonable and appropriate." At the end of the AO's there is a disclaimer warning not to apply the opinions willy-nilly to other situations. Other statements in the review could make line 183 sound more or less like concurrence, but it is definitely dancing too close to the line. And that brings me back to -

You didn't address my main point. What would be the reason for a revewer giving an opinion about the value conclusion, if it is outside the scope of review? And how do we get your brother on here?

 

[bradellis]

Michael,

In going thru the posts again, I note you have questioned Steve Santora's knowledge of USPAP and appraising. Frankly, that is quite amusing and I'm a bit surprised he has not jumped down your throat.

I've known Steve for a long time, and have conducted many many debates with him- publically. While he has not bothered to become a USPAP instructor, he could pass that test without taking the course. And there are not many out there more knowledgeable than he about appraising.

If you think he is posing some off the wall question/postulate, understand it from a deep knowledge of our art vs. a lack of knowledge.

Tread softly.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

 

[George Hatch]

This comment is directed toward the folks in this thread who apparently think that all review assignments require the reviewer to come up with thier own opinion of value.

If you look at the definition of "Appraisal Review", you'll see that involves the act or process of developing and communicating an opinion about "the quality of another appraiser's work." It doesn't limit itself to merely agreeing or disagreeing with the final conclusion of value as such. There are different levels of review that range from a simple check list to see if the main points in USPAP were addressed all the way up to a comprehensive field review, complete with interior inspection, not to mention all the points in between. To say that all reviews are created equal is just plain incorrect and ignores even the most common assignment conditions. The definition of and client/appraiser agreement of the assignment conditions is where the Scope of Work thing comes into play.

In a mortgage lending situation, it is very common for the scope of work to include an additional requirement or guideline that the reviewer come up with their own opinion of value, which is where the extra appraisal requirements sneak their way into the review assignment. But what happens when the original appraiser does things in the appraisal that call into question every element of it? For example, if an appraiser is making up comps, how can a reviewer possibly trust the balance of the appraisal report enough to rely on any part of it to develop their own opinion of value, short of going back out and starting over?

The reviewer must maintain the option of expressing a no-confidence opinion of the work (with cause) without being compelled to exceed the scope of work of the assignment to develop a separate opinion of value when there isn't enough reliable information in the original report to do it.

Like it or not, the old days are over. The ends do not justify the means. Just as an appraisal is more than the final conclusion of value, an appraisal review is more than an agreement/disagreement with that final conclusion of value. Some appraisals can be 'cured' at the review stage, others are damaged so far beyond repair as to be 'incurable'. As reviewers, we must draw the line somewhere.

 

[Farm Gal]

George:

For the benefit of some folk, let us not make this too scary. No USPAP police will arrest you for competently developing a value opinion in addition to the review... I quite agree that some appraisals are beyond curing, however: Many, one might even hazard MOST <_< , review clients do have what is effectively a no-pay rule if you do not develop a value. C'Mon it is more a business decision than an 'honor of the appraiser' issue.

In the course of performing the review one certainly had a good look at the available data which supports or dis-proves the reviewed reports validity in other areas than the value conclusion. You did pull county data and etc, right? And who can resist pulling all the theoretically valid comps on a stinker of a review :question: just to see HOW bad it really is?!

When you lose all confidence in an appraiser's data and analysis... At that point how much more work is it, really? Compelete the review portion of the assignment to the best of your ability. Then run with the other part of the assinment.

Drive-by or 'Desktop' appraisal, citing extraordinary assumptions and their basis as needed throughout. Make it QUITE clear that what is, is not, or is only minimally relied upon: from the reviewed reports statements, measures etc. Some incorporation by reference, some citation of other theoretically more valid sources... and DONE!

I figure I get fair to good pay for the appraisal <_< and did the review for darn near free I consider it "My little piece toward cleaning up our profession" :twisted: . I have to limit the number of these I am willing to do ....

If nothing else it makes a slimy broker pay extra to get his rubber stamp. :twisted: cause they have to get another review.... Here's the fun part: On occasion, I have gotten the same report for review from up to three different clients :twisted: The record was four $$$$:twisted: Voila! Suddenly the effort to reimbursement ratio is a gratifyingly positive factor! :usa:

suuuure they want it for some reason other than the stamp <_<