Maryland AMC Legislation Introduced
VaCAP has been asked by our neighbors in Maryland to help promote their AMC legislation. HB 64 was introduced into the General Assembly by Delegate Michael Jackson on January 10, 2018. The bill reduces the amount of time an AMC has to pay an appraiser from 60 days to 30 days.
The current language of the bill is as follows:
Article – Business Occupations and Professions
(a) Except in cases of breach of contract or substandard performance of services, an appraisal management company shall pay an appraiser for the completion of an appraisal or valuation assignment within [60] 30 days after the appraiser provides the completed appraisal or valuation study to the appraisal management company or its assignee.
See the full entry here or below.
If you are licensed in Maryland, please support this effort by attending the committee hearing:
January 16, 2018 at 1:00 PM
Economic Matters Room – Room 231
Lowe House Office Building
6 Bladen St.
Annapolis, MD 231401
Please see the rules and regulations for attending, speaking and submitting written documents here. They are different from Virginia and you must preregister.
- 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
Very good legislation. We all need to be supporting Maryland in their efforts to overcome some abuses by amcs.Â
So. ALL an AMC needs to do is allege substandard performance – say non compliance with USPAP and they won’t ever have to pay. File a complaint with the state and they are done – even a frivolous one.
Maryland already allows their enforcement / regulatory process to be used against appraisers by non clients and unintended users. This bill does nothing to reverse that trend.
Breach of contract? 45 page engagement letter requires notification by appraiser to client for further instructions if during the process it appears that the appraisal will come is lower than sale price (I know, not an acceptable condition – but presumably buried in the 45 pages). Or, perhaps they have some other directive condition like requiring 1 listing and 1 pending sale and there are none in the competitive market area? Â
Pay the appraiser in 60 days? How does that benefit anyone other than the AMC? Do Maryland municipalities allow bills to them to be paid 60 days after they are due?
I applaud the effort and intent but not the substance of the bill. AMCs are paid by borrowers before they ever assign the order to appraisers.
What possible justification can there be for not paying them in advance; or at a minimum within 24 hours after the inspection?
This bill promotes the concept of the AMC holding the fee hostage for any revisions they may want.
This is BAD legislation VaCAP and respectfully you should be seeking to get it revised rather than promoting it.
Mike Ford: VaCAP is not the sponsor of this legislation. As stated above, we are merely assisting them in getting the word out as we have many VaCAP members that are licensed in our bordering state, Maryland.
Current Maryland law allows amcs to pay appraisers within 60 days. The proposed legislation changes this to 30 days. A definite benefit to all Maryland appraisers and more in line with Virginia’s amc regulation.
As you are aware, once a bill is introduced it is subject to revisions, rewording, etc. Your colleagues that are behind this bill have worked very hard over several years to get to this point. What is on the table is far superior to existing laws and does benefit appraisers in Maryland. Please help support your fellow AGA members and colleagues in Maryland in getting this improved law passed.
Thanks for clarification re 30 vs 60 days.
I’d like to know what is actually on the table (if other than the above copy).
Maryland is one of the states that we (AGA) have identified as being guilty of extreme abuse of process against appraisers.
This originates at the Enforcement Agency level and continues up through the Attorney Generals Office and through the Administrative Law Process. So far, it appears to stop short of including the Admin Law Judges themselves.
AGA is reluctant to sign in support of legislation that does little or nothing to address the far more important issues. We wish the sponsors no ill will on this.
We know its hard getting even this far, but we do not support band aid solutions to extremely important issues of fundamental integrity of the basic state enforcement process.
Good luck Maryland!
Any legislation that makes appraisers lives better is worth the fight! I am behind you 100% Maryland!
CO has something about not being forced to indemnify the distributor. Ever since that came out, I never had to sign another agreement to attain work, and also I presume such previously signed agreements were null and void. I think that answers your objection Mr Ford. Also it’s essential to include mandatory fee disclosure by the appraiser, that keeps the undercutters from being so bold and allows for better back end auditing. Don’t forget to include the 20% distributor fee cap. Add a 1,000 charge for all complaints which were then deemed improperly levied against appraisers after review. Have to fund the enforcement division programs, appraisers are dropping like flies.
Baggs, maybe I’m missing something. Don’t see how the Colorado law you refer to about no indemnification relates here. If you mean holding back the fee, this bill clearly infers that can still be done. Can you post the Colorado verbiage, if it prevents fee being held hostage?
Maybe its verbiage that should be incorporated?
In any case we aren’t supporting bad legislation. Your additional suggestions for the bill would certainly tip the scales and sway me, but that isn’t what the bill actually says. Anyway, lets see what happens and what the enforcement mechanisms are if it passes.
Ok so if I understand Maryland’s rules for written comment or testimony correctly they require THIRTY FIVE HARD COPIES of any correspondence!? Another example of bureaucrats making government participation readily accessible? Has anyone told them about the internet and email?Just a suggestion folks, when asking for support its always a good idea to state who specifically (Committee on Economic Matters???) supporters should correspond with, and also to attempt to find out if this can be done by email submission. It affects timeliness & logistical planning for those may be reluctant supporters to begin with.
how about legislation demanding real minimum “reasonable” fees