<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Sharing Report with Fellow Appraisers a USPAP Violation?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/is-sharing-a-report-with-a-fellow-appraiser-a-violation-of-uspap-confidentiality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/is-sharing-a-report-with-a-fellow-appraiser-a-violation-of-uspap-confidentiality/</link>
	<description>Appraisal News and Tips for Real Estate Appraisers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:16:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike Ford		</title>
		<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/is-sharing-a-report-with-a-fellow-appraiser-a-violation-of-uspap-confidentiality/#comment-10991</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Ford]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 19:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://appraisersblogs.com/?p=6075#comment-10991</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I concur. As written USPAP has no provision for sharing (other than peer review within the context of the certifications and statement of limiting conditions; AND assistance of a professional nature disclosure. Until its more specifically addressed I&#039;d add verbiage that &quot;internal staff; and associates within the appraisal firm may provide quality control oversight &#038; peer review short of appraisal assistance of a professional nature. All are bound by the same confidentiality requirements as the signing appraiser.&quot;
It may still be a gray area unless the client consents prior to acceptance. Of course if they consent, there is no issue to begin with. It would be wiser for AMCS to include enabling language in their original orders, recognizing how common (and &#039;necessary / beneficial&#039;) that this is. Even one man shops have trusted associates whose opinions they value.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I concur. As written USPAP has no provision for sharing (other than peer review within the context of the certifications and statement of limiting conditions; AND assistance of a professional nature disclosure. Until its more specifically addressed I&#8217;d add verbiage that &#8220;internal staff; and associates within the appraisal firm may provide quality control oversight &amp; peer review short of appraisal assistance of a professional nature. All are bound by the same confidentiality requirements as the signing appraiser.&#8221;<br />
It may still be a gray area unless the client consents prior to acceptance. Of course if they consent, there is no issue to begin with. It would be wiser for AMCS to include enabling language in their original orders, recognizing how common (and &#8216;necessary / beneficial&#8217;) that this is. Even one man shops have trusted associates whose opinions they value.</p>
<div class="cld-like-dislike-wrap cld-template-4">
    <div class="cld-like-wrap  cld-common-wrap">
    <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="cld-like-trigger cld-like-dislike-trigger  " title="" data-comment-id="10991" data-trigger-type="like" data-restriction="cookie" data-already-liked="0">
                        <i class="far fa-smile"></i>
                    </a>
    <span class="cld-like-count-wrap cld-count-wrap">    </span>
</div></div>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
