<?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: New CA Law Negative Effect for Appraisers	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://appraisersblogs.com/new-ca-law-effect-on-working-relationship-between-appraisers-n-amcs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/new-ca-law-effect-on-working-relationship-between-appraisers-n-amcs</link>
	<description>Appraisal News and Tips for Real Estate Appraisers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:25:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike Ford, American Guild of Appraisers (AGA™)		</title>
		<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/new-ca-law-effect-on-working-relationship-between-appraisers-n-amcs/#comment-28347</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Ford, American Guild of Appraisers (AGA™)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:46:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://appraisersblogs.com/?p=23101#comment-28347</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As long as fees are cited by loan officers prior to the &quot;hired&quot; appraiser being given an opportunity to quote, then price fixing remains in effect. Setting the fee for compensation sure seems like an employer-employee relationship to me.

Pretending that we can then &#039;bid&#039; our own fees afterward, KNOWING no one at am AMC will change TRID quoted fees once made is misleading and deceptive. until we control our fees; control our collection of fees (FNMA refuses to permit this-in deference to ABA and MBA desire to keep clients locked in) and until we control reasonable turn around times, then for all intents and purposes we ARE employees!

Whether we intended to be or want to be. I am not seeing exactly who Mr. Pratt&#039;s suggested content is supposed to protect. I sure as hell am not waiving any recourse I may have agaisnt any AMC going into the future without knowing specifically what it is I am supposed to hold them harmless for!

How does this benefit an appraiser?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as fees are cited by loan officers prior to the &#8220;hired&#8221; appraiser being given an opportunity to quote, then price fixing remains in effect. Setting the fee for compensation sure seems like an employer-employee relationship to me.</p>
<p>Pretending that we can then &#8216;bid&#8217; our own fees afterward, KNOWING no one at am AMC will change TRID quoted fees once made is misleading and deceptive. until we control our fees; control our collection of fees (FNMA refuses to permit this-in deference to ABA and MBA desire to keep clients locked in) and until we control reasonable turn around times, then for all intents and purposes we ARE employees!</p>
<p>Whether we intended to be or want to be. I am not seeing exactly who Mr. Pratt&#8217;s suggested content is supposed to protect. I sure as hell am not waiving any recourse I may have agaisnt any AMC going into the future without knowing specifically what it is I am supposed to hold them harmless for!</p>
<p>How does this benefit an appraiser?</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="28347" 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>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: SB		</title>
		<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/new-ca-law-effect-on-working-relationship-between-appraisers-n-amcs/#comment-28345</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SB]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://appraisersblogs.com/?p=23101#comment-28345</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Callifornia based Corelogic is SQUARELY in the cross hairs with this.

Any coincidence their stock price is down 20% since September 1st?
Any coincidence they just hired a new Chief Legal Counselor.

The AMC must be able to show that the appraiser business is providing its services directly to the AMC rather than to customers of the AMC – this might present a challenging argument because under appraisal standards the “client” of the appraiser is usually defined as a lender (when the appraisal assignment is for a loan).

The AMC must be able to show that the appraiser business supplies all its own “tools” and “equipment” to perform the services (AMCs will need to consider whether any of their new cloud/software-based appraisal products cross this line).

The AMC has the burden of satisfying all three parts of the ABC test:

(A) that the worker is &quot;free from the control and direction&quot; of the hiring firm in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and 

(B) that the worker performs work that is &quot;outside the usual course&quot; of the firm’s business; and 

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. 

To meet their burden under Part B, AMCs need to establish that the appraisal services by their contractor appraisers are not services performed “within the usual course” of the AMC’s business. If an AMC cannot meet this burden (and also satisfy the other two easier parts of the test), then its contractor appraisers may be reclassified as employees and be entitled to regular employees’ rights and benefits (such as overtime, break time, etc.) — unless the AMC can show that a specific exception in AB 5 applies.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Callifornia based Corelogic is SQUARELY in the cross hairs with this.</p>
<p>Any coincidence their stock price is down 20% since September 1st?<br />
Any coincidence they just hired a new Chief Legal Counselor.</p>
<p>The AMC must be able to show that the appraiser business is providing its services directly to the AMC rather than to customers of the AMC – this might present a challenging argument because under appraisal standards the “client” of the appraiser is usually defined as a lender (when the appraisal assignment is for a loan).</p>
<p>The AMC must be able to show that the appraiser business supplies all its own “tools” and “equipment” to perform the services (AMCs will need to consider whether any of their new cloud/software-based appraisal products cross this line).</p>
<p>The AMC has the burden of satisfying all three parts of the ABC test:</p>
<p>(A) that the worker is &#8220;free from the control and direction&#8221; of the hiring firm in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and </p>
<p>(B) that the worker performs work that is &#8220;outside the usual course&#8221; of the firm’s business; and </p>
<p>(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. </p>
<p>To meet their burden under Part B, AMCs need to establish that the appraisal services by their contractor appraisers are not services performed “within the usual course” of the AMC’s business. If an AMC cannot meet this burden (and also satisfy the other two easier parts of the test), then its contractor appraisers may be reclassified as employees and be entitled to regular employees’ rights and benefits (such as overtime, break time, etc.) — unless the AMC can show that a specific exception in AB 5 applies.</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="28345" 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>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: TruthBTold		</title>
		<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/new-ca-law-effect-on-working-relationship-between-appraisers-n-amcs/#comment-28343</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthBTold]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:17:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://appraisersblogs.com/?p=23101#comment-28343</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you for this. I am just concerned that the AMC&#039;s have already created enough staff appraisers who have never experienced independent freedom or free enterprise and will have the attitude of &quot;what&#039;s to take back&quot;?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this. I am just concerned that the AMC&#8217;s have already created enough staff appraisers who have never experienced independent freedom or free enterprise and will have the attitude of &#8220;what&#8217;s to take back&#8221;?</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="28343" 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>
