Don, Non-disclosure states are horrible for appraisers to work in. I deal with Texas appraisers frequently. More so than most other states, though NM has also presented some interesting non-disclosure state-related issues.

Disclosure vs non-disclosure is a special interest policy. Take a state like Texas where privacy is important, self-reliance is promoted, & independence is more prized than in many other states. SFR owners (voters) are told it is their fundamental right to privacy that is at stake. What they are NOT told is that non-disclosure best facilitates preferential tax assessing in order to repay large donors out of the public eye.

In Los Angeles, the old ARCO Towers sold for many millions once with no reassessment. Its property tax should have increased about ten-fold after the sale. The ONLY way the loophole was discovered that allowed it to remain assessed at its old much lower rate was ‘public record’. Interested parties looked it up and brought it to the media’s attention.

In Texas, giant ranch owners may be assessed at much lower rates and even gross taxes than nearby smaller SFR owner’s property. It is possible, but not convenient to identify such cases. It would be MUCH easier and beneficial if residents could look up ANY property and assure it is being taxed fairly-the same as everyone else; OR that the reason for the variance is identified and understood.

One argument that is made (often by celebrities or government workers) is that property records available to the public should not indicate the owners names for safety reasons. This same argument (which has solutions other than complete non-disclosure) is used by huge commercial property owners to retain a system of reporting that facilitates their circumventing higher, appropriate taxes.

There is a good reason Certified Tax Protesters can earn a lot of money in Texas in challenging assessments.

Anyway Don, California has pretty good overall disclosure. Larger counties learned 10-20 years ago that it was to everyone’s advantage to accurately report sale price and owner-seller information. It’s better for agents; for NAR, CAR, appraisers, IRS, City and County Officials, and Legal Adjudication and process serving.

Civilized and ethical communities do not expect government to help them hide from legally entitled entities knowing property sale information. While WE are not one of those legally entitled entities, we are perhaps among the most benign of them. It would be faster and more convenient for all property owners seeking refinances or purchases if the sales data were disclosed.

MIKE:
if appraisers associations had any power we might influence the states and various uncooperative counties to free up the public information. The Governments advantage, and The Realtors advantage are greater than Seemingly protecting it. Did any of you work on an appraisal where the salesman sold toooo loooow

TOP to BOTTOM ProTeck is a complete DISASTER. Dysfunctional illiterate employees work in their pajamas from home. Reviewers have College degrees in “Golf Course Management”.

Get an appraisal condition while on vacation? YOU ARE SUSPENDED WITHOUT NOTIFICATION.

I just got a $3M yesterday for $400…

I told them $1500 or lose my #…

I guess they lost my # !! LOL

I get that we are now supposed to do things differently than in the past, but let’s not toss our past completely.

1. Instrument recording numbers (doc numbers) were traditionally verifications that the sale did in fact take place and that the price was verified by reviewing the document recording transfer stamps (in disclosure states). ‘Public Records” was usually duplicative of this verification though some less than ethical or competent appraisers would attempt to treat two public record sources as if they were two sets of market data. To me, a doc number takes priority over an agent’s claim of closing a property every single time. Again, its importance is in disclosure, versus non-disclosure states where doc numbers mean nothing more than ‘something was recorded’.

2. Market terms and property-specific data from ‘an involved party to the transaction’ is being treated as if only a phone call to that agent/buyer/seller is acceptable. It is not the ony method of confirming information with a party to the transaction. The MLS is per the listing broker. In most markets, it’s updated post-sale closing with confirmation of the price and disclosure of any applicable concessions. No further involved party verification is required, or in so many cases practical. Is the involved party listing agent going to suddenly say (verbally) “Nothing I put in the mls was accurate?” In my work, I charge enough money and require 10 to 14 WORKING days turn around time so that I can have the luxury of speaking directly to involved parties, building officials, zoning officials, other agents, etc.

Appraisers that have been told work is due 48 hours after inspection do not have this luxury. It can easily take 24 to 48 or even 72 hours just to get a return phone call.

As micro-management becomes more and more intrusive common sense seems to become less and less common. A horribly inadequately designed form report has managed to finally conflate data (general property information) with confirmation that it closed as reported information (verification).

Some clients require the specific MLS name and listing number (Good luck getting the San Gabriel River Valley Multiple Listing Service and an mls number plus an agent’s name and number in the form box). Some clients like/require tax parcel numbers in the grid “someplace” and have improperly directed appraisers to put it up in the data and verification lines which may have given rise to this particular VA reps issue.

Licensed and certified appraisers know how to report information data and verification information.. As long as lender/AMC micro managers pretending to be ‘UWs’ stay the hell out of it.

“In Idaho, appraisers have to work to get the closing document, typically from the Agent(s) involved. But that’s not always guaranteed.”

“But there are 15 states which are considered to be ‘non-disclosure’ – which generally means the Sales Price is not publicly revealed. These are: Idaho…”

Seek the truth.

Sounds like a very familiar client of mine. Always telling me what their client is willing to pay. In reality their staff appraiser’s have refused to do the appraisal due to complexity so they are looking for a sucker to say yes at below market rate. This scumbag company is known as Proteck. Expose this fraudulent company for what it is. Complete scam artists. Every appraiser needs to avoid this company. Their Chief appraiser was caught in a pedophile ring. So sad!

To approve your $5,000,000 cash out refinance Mr. Smith, just sign right here authorizing and approving the appraisal fee of $340. Just to confirm, at a rate of 4.5%, your $5,000,000 loan results in monthly payments of $25,334.27, and or give or take with all other fees will run around $30,000 per month, $1,000 per day, and or $41 per hour. Do you agree to these terms or would you like to negotiate for a lower appraisal fee?

Seek the ugly truth.

No they expect you to do that before accepting the assignment and for free to boot.

Please let me know if you might be able to help us out with a 1004 at the property below. The client has offered us a fee of $340 and a due date of 11/20. Thank you!

5366 Calumet Ave LA Jolla, CA 92037.

That’s right, this $6,223,878 (Zillow) ocean front assignment is due in 5 days, and can be yours for a fee of $340. If we’re talking about verification, how about our clients verify the properties characteristics and complexities before they quote an appraisal fee on our behalf.

Welcome to California where all of the assignments are cookie cutters.

Seek the truth.

It would be great if some of our national organization/peer groups would work on educating the NAR members on the importance of verifying data with the appraiser and that it is not a violation of Dodd Frank.