Unintended Use & Misleading Appraisal Reports
Latest posts by Michael Ford (see all)
- Baby or Bath Water? And Is it Time to Take Back USPAP? - February 24, 2017
- AI’s Effort to Eliminate the ASC! - February 22, 2017
- Congress, Please…No More Cash for FNMA Clunkers! - February 17, 2017
Unintended and Potentially Misleading
At what point do we ALL say enough?
When they insist on unlocked PDF, XML or ENV formats that facilitate recipients in removing portions of appraisal reports they don’t like? Too late.
When they blacklist appraisers for refusing to make post effective date contract analysis changes?
When they set the fees we charge?
When they change the scope of work after assignments are completed?
When they LIE to borrowers about how much the ‘appraisal fee’ is?
Now we have several that think THEY own MY professional work product? Like HELL they do!
Any, repeat, ANY appraiser that assigns all ownership rights to their appraisal is foolish and MAY be inadvertently violating USPAP by not taking reasonable steps to assure that the appraisal is used only as intended and is not used for purposes that are unintended and potentially misleading.
This would include the unintended resale of portions of the appraisers professional research, development and intellectual property to uninvolved third parties…for example folks like CoreLogic, Clear Capital or any others, to use in any manner and context that they choose.
The ONLY solution to this, is to push back and let these companies know that you may like to do business with them but that you are contracting ONLY to provide USPAP compliant appraisal services for a loan and you are NOT relinquishing your rights of ownership associated with a professional work product! Further, START COPYRIGHTING YOUR APPRAISALS! Learn how and DO it. The FNMA statement of Limiting Conditions now has me responsible to far more downstream “users” than I ever intended. It’s not a stretch to think that some aspiring attorney will eventually seek the appraisers E&O “deep pocket” when some unauthorized study based on our reports inconveniences some unintended user that relies on it for some unintended purpose.
If MY work products are used to build a $400 million dollar data corporation then I want my share! ANY firm requiring this as a condition of employment should be boycotted 100%. Further, consideration of class action suits need to be considered. Restraint of trade? Fraud? Misrepresentation? How much should this practice ADD to the necessary C&R fee?
Since borrowers usually pay for the appraisal, have THEY been informed that the appraisal will be used by third parties for their own commercial interests? Should borrowers have been compensated for the unauthorized use of appraisals THEY paid for that were subsequently used by data aggregators? When CoreLogic said they based a study after reviewing over a million appraisals they were acknowledging such unauthorized use. Seems to me that SOMEONE owes an AWFUL lot of money to a whole bunch of borrowers and possibly appraisers as well.
Check with your attorneys people!
This one item got me so angry I don’t even want to comment anymore on MY submissions for worst AMCs (First American and any affiliates, CoreLogic, LRES and whaever old LSI is calling itself these days Knight or Black Knight or whatever).
It WILL be a topic for Guild attention in the immediate future! YOUR thoughts?