WI board finding, most detailed I've seen

[Tim Schneider]

Here is a link to a finding by the WI board last month:

http://drl.wi.gov/dept/decisions/docs/20071115Loehrke.htm

Some things I found interesting in the finding:

- The state reviewer questions why the appraiser did not include personal property in the value opinion
- The reviewer admits the "fee simple" vs. "leased fee" debate for rental properties is not a USPAP requirement, but a "best practice"
- Despite the problems they found with the appraisers reports, they decided not to order any remeidial education or license limitations
- They named the reviewer, something I have not seen before

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

In his proposed decision, the Administrative Law Judge stated in his Opinion, but did not include a specific finding in his proposed Findings of Fact, that the appraisal report prepared by Mr. Loehrke relating to the property located at 207 East Main Street, Weyauwega, WI, is USPAP compliant. The Administrative Law Judge opined that the USPAP violations alleged by Ms. Scott do not rise to the level sufficient to be considered a violation of S.R 1-1; that the record is devoid of evidence that the Weyauwega appraisal was not credible and that equally absent is any indication that any of the errors proven to have been committed by the applicant resulted in a significant impact on the appraisal. ..The Department does not accept the Administrative Law Judge's determination that the appraisal report for the property located at 207 East Main Street, Weyauwega, WI complies with USPAP.

When the heck does a board have the power to trump an administrative law judge? If they do, what's the point of a judge? WI law is wierd.

 

[Lawrence R.]

A review of USPAP regulations can provide some guidance. The USPAP rules
contain a jumble of rules, standards, standards rules, statements on appraisal standards
and advisory opinions. The USPAP rules have been modified and revised over time and
represent a fluid process rather than a fixed target. This fluidity is exemplified by
Standard 1 and Standards Rule 1-1.

Now, that is a mouthful...

So my concern was on page 10 there was no​

effective date tied to the value opinion. The
next concern dealt with interest valued, and this
was something that had appeared in a prior report
that Mr. Loehrke had been alerted to this concern.

Where does USPAP say it has to be on page 10, "attached" to the value opinion? As long as you identify the effective date in your report, you're OK.

On page 17, Exhibit 8, the next to the last
paragraph shows that the subject was purchased on
May 11th of 2004, so that falls within the
three-year window. The purchase price was
reported as $90,000, but that's the extent of
information related to that sale.

Like what? How the weather was on that day? USPAP doesn't say we have to report all the findings of our analysis, just that we MUST analyze the sales. Teh fact that the sale was reported IMO is the evidence of that analysis.

Aw, heck , this could go on for days. Let me simply state that for once, it seemed the ALJ knew what was what, and the Board didn't like it at all. Anytime you poke your head into thier little fiefdom, assume there will be an attmept to cut it off.

Many of these so called "best practices" violations are just peronal preference and appraiser's overall disdain for one another bleeding through. My recommendation would be that this reviewer has worked on teh Board for too long, and has become prejudiced based on the large amount of horrible work she has seen to the extent that she feels that everything they send her must be bad.

It's sad, really. But it does seem like this guy could have spent a few more hours in a URAR case study class so that he would understand better what most appraisers are doing in the residential world. It was really a case of him not having typical, cookie cutter work to show.

 

[Tom Barclay]

Just increidble.

A His reconciliation is one sentence at the bottom

of the report or maybe two sentences just saying

all three standard approaches yield a similar

result. None is weighed more heavily than the

others reconciling all three approaches to value.

The final value opinion is $95,000.

But he didn't really do what he said he did

because his three approaches to value were a

little bit over $94,000, a little over $95,000 and

$96,000. So if he said that all three were equal,

presumably he would have averaged and the value

opinion would have $95,100 or whatever the -- I

don't have my calculator -- whatever the average

of these three value opinions by the three

approaches was. You know, instead he just said,

"I reconciled them, and it's $95,000." He didn't

explain to us --



Q How he arrived at that $95,000, that's the

problem?



A Yes.



Q He needs to explain how he's going to arrive at

that final market value?



A Right, because he didn't do what he said he did.

He said he gave them equal weight, which would

imply that he averaged, but he didn't do that.

 

[Ray Miller]

Judge Black has appeared and does appear to have knowledge about USPAP and appraisal pratice.

I will be before Judge Black again in 10 days. The state has reopend the case I won last spring on my summary suspension. Now we are going for the full complaint again.

Ms. Scott is the reivewer, caseworker, the voting member of the board, consultant to the board and the investigator on my first hearing for the state.

Wish I could say more but I can't.

 

[kerrylanger]

Was Judge Black the AL judge on the original post? If the board does not agree, what happens next? Does it then ping pong back to the board, or would it appeal to a higher level in the court system? Does anyone know?

 

[Fred]

Why is it that every time I read one of these things, I find them enforcing non-existing rules?

S.R. 1-2f Scope of Work: No scope of work statement.

USPAP has never required a scope-of-work “statement,” and if “stating” something is a requirement, it would have to fall under Std 2, not under Std 1.

S.R. 1-2c Purpose and Reasonable Market Exposure Time: Does not provide an opinion of reasonable exposure time linked to the value opinion

Does not provide an opinion of reasonable exposure time linked to the value opinion [/quote] Maybe USPAP ought to require one to report (“provide”) an estimate of exposure time, but it just doesn’t. And if it did, that would reporting requirements are in Std 2, not Std 1.

 

[Karl]

Judge Black has appeared and does appear to have knowledge about USPAP and appraisal pratice.

I will be before Judge Black again in 10 days. The state has reopend the case I won last spring on my summary suspension. Now we are going for the full complaint again.

Ms. Scott is the reivewer, caseworker, the voting member of the board, consultant to the board and the investigator on my first hearing for the state.

Wish I could say more but I can't.

You don't have to say more!! anyone should be able to read between those lines.

 

[Tim Schneider]

Steven, do you think there is anything that can be done about it?

 

[Brian Weaver]

You need to understand administrative law. The Board is the jury pool and they can absolutely disregard the RECOMMENDATION of an ALJ. Remember, ALJs may have limited knowledge about appraising. The case will have findings of fact and conclusions of law but the Board is the final word on the case.