Coester Surety Bond Claims Exceed Value
Coester VMS Surety Bond Claims Exceed Value…
Appraisers licensed in North Carolina received the following email by International Fidelity Insurance Company:
Re: Principal: Coestervms
Bond No.: TXIFSU0633863
Obligee: NORTH CAROLINA APPRAISAL BOARDPlease be advised that International Fidelity Insurance Company (the “Surety”) issued an Appraisal Bond to CoesterVMS (“Coester”). The penal limit of the bond is $25,000.00. This letter will advise you that the Surety has received claims against the above referenced bond in excess of the bond’s penal sum. As a result, the Surety will pay claims on the bond on a pro rata basis according to the amount of each parties established claim.
The Surety requests that all potential claimants, that have not already done so, file their claim by sending correspondence and supporting documentation to the addressed or e-mail listed above no later than December 30, 2018. Please note that after December 30, 2018 the Surety will proceed with pro rata distributions to all valid perfected claimants. However, after the penal limit has been exhausted, all claims received after that time will be advised the penal limit has been reached and the bond has been released.
This letter is sent without prejudice to the rights of International Fidelity Insurance Company and its principal and it shall not constitute a waiver or release of their rights, defenses, claims or setoffs, including, without limitation, those based on timely compliance with applicable notice requirements and statutory or contractual periods of limitation.
Very truly yours,
INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY
[Signature]
Damitta Straughter
Senior Claims Administratorcc: Jeri Mach, Underwriting Manager – Commerical Surety
In Virginia, AMCs are required to have a $100,000 Surety bond of a letter of credit.
We hope Virginia appraisers are monitoring their receivables and taking quick action against late payments. In the event a Virginia appraiser is having difficulty collecting money owed from an AMC and wishes to file a claim against the surety bond, please familiarize yourself with the law and procedure:
Excerpt from 54.1-2021.1.
A party having a claim against the licensee may bring suit directly on the surety bond. When a claimant or an appraiser is awarded a final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction against a licensee of this section for the licensee’s failure to faithfully perform its obligations under this chapter or failure to pay an appraiser who performed an appraisal, the claimant or the appraiser may file a claim with the Board for a directive ordering payment from the bond issuer of the amount of the judgment, court costs and reasonable attorney fees as awarded by the court. Such claim shall be filed with the Board no later than 12 months after the judgment becomes final. Upon receipt of the claim against the licensee, the Board may cause its own investigation to be conducted.”
See the complete Statute on Town Hall.
________________________________________
Join us in Springfield, VA, on February 7th and 8th for the VaCAP’s Conference. We Are pleased to partner with George Dell to provide 14 hours of Continuing Education during our conference.
For more information, please click here.
- The New Con: Hybrids, Waivers & AMCs Threaten Public Trust - December 16, 2024
- VaCAP Supports Shane Lanham’s Legal Fight - September 10, 2024
- It’s Just Responsible Journalism! - February 21, 2024
Well I guess this answers the previous question about Coester…Is he being honest? Thank you for the updates on this matter. I do not do work for this company, hopefully those who still work for him don’t get burned too bad.
What a joke. Go straight to the NC banking commission and demand full payment
Aren’t the lender/clients on the hook for payment if their agent, the AMC, defaults?
They should be !!
If the lender would have just paid the appraiser directly, having hired their own small staff to manage appraisal distribution through one of the half dozen distribution platforms readily available to them, they could have saved time, money, and avoided the coming consequences of these types of inevitable amc defaults. More importantly than the name of the amc which defaulted, since the next one is always just around the corner, appraisers should also know which lenders that were using that amc so they may also solicit them directly for relief from the imbalanced and unfair amc distribution structure.
Well said !! As usual !!
I have a credit union client who only serves San Diego county (3.1 million people), and per Wikipedia they have assets of 3 billion, and serve 200,000 customers. I know for a fact (I have an insider), they have a department of two, that as PART of their job description includes monitoring the appraisal ordering/review process (Mercury Network). They are outstanding to work with, and invite ALL of their vendors to yearly CHRISTMAS parties where we are each recognized.
Although this company has chosen to spend pennies on the dollar out of their own pocket to keep in-house the appraisal ordering, most lenders choose to save the pennies by having THE APPRAISER pay an AMC by way of split fees.
The lenders greed is not $200 per appraisal assignment (AMC split), but rather more disturbing, is pennies per appraisal when a staff of one or two can in a part time way monitor the appraisal procedure.
Seek the truth.
What’s the deal with Scope suddenly getting traction? Mercury is exponentially better than Scope.
Does anyone know if Coester has a Surety Bond in Florida?