GAO to Investigate Appraisal Loopholes
…Arizona is seeking damages and penalties against CoesterVMS… GAO has agreed to complete the study…
Maxine Waters and Congressman William Lacy Clay requested a formal study/investigation into Title XI (FIRREA) and the recent dilution of its intent by the Federal Agencies. VaCAP has learned GAO has agreed to complete the study. The Network of State Coalitions has sent the following to their state members:
This is the result of so many voices – the Foundation, ASA, coalitions, NAR, etc. Our Network efforts have given us an inside connection that hopefully we can continue to build on. Our meeting in DC with Pierre from HFSC staff last October I believe made a huge impression on how diverse and significant our representation is.
I also think that the same outcry from similar groups over hybrids and some of the wacky proposals has had a great impact. If it wasn’t for sharing information and speaking up on these issues, there would be no awareness and no resistance.
Great job everybody, let’s hope this is the beginning of something. This is not just a study, this appears to be part of a systematic look into what’s happening. I think the ND ASC waiver and de minimis change was a lot to happen at one time and are what really brought attention to what is going on. It was so extreme. Hopefully now it is all attracting a serious look into EVERYTHING that has been happening with appraisals.
We can not stress enough how beneficial it is for each and everyone of you be involved with VaCAP. Together, we can and will make a difference. To join VaCAP or renew your membership, visit our website.
The State of Arizona goes after CoesterVMS.
VaCAP has just learned the state of Arizona is seeking damages and penalties against CoesterVMS for violations of law. Arizona has ordered CoesterVMS’s license revoked and penalties for noncompliance in the amount of $25,000. See the order below.
- VaCAP Supports Shane Lanham’s Legal Fight - September 10, 2024
- It’s Just Responsible Journalism! - February 21, 2024
- Limitations for Damages Against Appraisers - January 9, 2024
This article, along with Mr Ford’s recent comment about lender accountability with the amc’s the lender purposefully selects, has me wondering why the state is considering the amc as a stand alone entity in this regard. Educate me on surety bonds. Do those bonds need to be purchased per state, or as a whole? Did this amc have 20k in this individual state covered, or was that a national policy? If the state has evidence to support the payments should have been made, and this amc was legally functioning as an agent of the lender, and all parties both harmed and those whom caused harm are licensed companies or persons, why doesn’t the state force the lender to pay their appraiser bills? That should be written into law right alongside amc requirements for surety bonds. The lender is obliged by this and that rule to maintain due diligence of both quality of service and other expected activities like payment to vendors. Outsourcing does not relieve the lender of obligations of harm caused by inadequate service, nor does it relieve lenders amounts payable which may be left in default by exhausting surety bonds or by insolvency of any third party manager. Something like that. The lender bundled and sold those loans with those completed, yet left unpaid appraisals. Don’t lenders sign certifications assuring that all payments were rendered and received? If the state is not prepared to go against corporations of this size, they should at least have a relief fund to pay appraisers out when the regulated amc’s go insolvent.