USPAP Will No Longer Be Misleading
27 27 8
Back in early February on Appraisalville, I questioned a new definition that appeared in USPAP for the term “misleading.” Many others took to their platforms to criticize it, such as Phil Crawford of the Voice of Appraisal podcast and Dave Towne, a prolific writer of all things that keep appraisers sane.
Dave writes today:
Gad zooks… I (and lots of others) hope and wish the Appraisal Standards Board would QUIT making changes to USPAP every friggin’ two years! There is no way to satisfy everyone’s individual perspective as to how USPAP should be written.
Here is the problematic definition from the current version of USPAP.
While I didn’t question the intent of TAF (the irony of this statement doesn’t escape me), I felt they had overstepped their bounds and the determination of the qualitative nature of intent was for only for the courts to decide. This situation is likely a result of the too frequent two-year updates. After three decades, there isn’t much to update in our industry and therefore the operating boundaries of TAF are more likely to be inadvertently crossed as reasons for changes become harder to find.
The definition of “misleading” unleashed a wave of criticism because it meant that if an appraiser made an inadvertent error (think about the 800+ fields on a URAR), they were essentially a criminal. This exposed appraisers to a potential tsunami of litigation and real estate attorneys were excited about the prospect.
There is always the usual good-faith attempt to rationalize the pretzel logic but all this did was heighten the confusion and angst of appraisers. For what purpose?
Thankfully it looks like the definition of “misleading” has been scratched in the Second Exposure Draft 2022-23 of USPAP:
I am thankful that the industry response has influenced this edit and appreciative that The Appraisal Foundation listened.
Please don’t forget to submit comments to the other proposed changes by July 30, 2020.