UAD 3.6 and the Danger of Corporate Pragmatism
The rollout of the new UAD 3.6 framework has triggered a major wave of compliance literature, and a perfect example is a recent article by Woody Fincham at Valuation Nation, titled “Certification 25: What’s the Real Risk to the Appraiser?”. In his piece, Woody sets aside the rhetoric and lists my AppraisersBlogs article regarding our legal defenses under this dataset as a citation reference at the end of his post. While he acknowledges the existence of this perspective, his broader argument claims that the legal risks of signing Certification 25 are low, the threat of regulatory discipline is minimal, and the entire shift is just a natural economic progression of the digital age. I believe his conclusion represents a dangerous path of corporate pragmatism for independent business owners. Accepting this framework as an unavoidable reality forces independent appraisers to step into a massive corporate liability trap simply because it is presented as the only way to maintain access to the traditional lending and secondary market pipelines.
Compliance driven commentary frequently uses the legacy Certification 21 template to suggest that Certification 25 is nothing new, but this comparison glosses over a profound legal canyon. The legacy Certification 21 simply controlled the distribution of the final completed document to relevant parties inside the lending loop, allowing a client to share the completed appraisal report without granting secondary parties any right to extract or weaponize the underlying analysis. Certification 25 keeps that original list but adds a brand new sentence granting any recipient the explicit legal right to store, copy, reproduce, analyze, use, and distribute the data for internal or external purposes without our consent. Under legacy rules, they could only view the final document; Certification 25 forces us to give them a permanent, uncompensated data license to strip out our interior photos, condition scores, layout metrics, and defect observations. This is not a routine update; it is a hostile corporate asset grab that fundamentally alters data ownership.
I also see a significant flaw in how Woody minimizes the copyright and data protection angle. He explicitly agrees with the risk analysis published by Isaac Peck over at Working RE Magazine, acknowledging that Certification 25 removes the passive nature of the legacy rules and creates an express written contract that strips away copyright defenses under federal law. Yet, after admitting that this text erases our primary legal defense against data exploitation, Woody rates the actual risk as low simply because errors and omissions insurers have not seen an influx of lawsuits yet. This is a problematic approach to risk management. While there may have been fewer claims under the legacy framework when our legal defenses were still intact, the post-3.6 landscape is an entirely new environment. Advising independent business owners to sign away their fundamental legal rights and intellectual property protections just because a claim has not materialized under a completely different set of rules is a major corporate blind spot.
Woody even attempts to soothe privacy concerns by echoing the argument that once a borrower name and street address are stripped out of the report, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act no longer applies, allowing the data to be safely released into public files and used to train machine learning models. This logic is completely uncoupled from the reality of modern technology. New artificial intelligence platforms can now instantly pinpoint the exact physical location of a property using just a single interior photograph. Ripping text lines off page one is legally meaningless when modern computer vision can reverse engineer a living room or even a laundry room photo back to a specific doorstep in seconds. The photograph itself remains linkable personal data, and pretending it is anonymized is a massive compliance illusion.
The historical reality is that our reports are protected by federal copyright law, which is exactly why Certification 25 was engineered as a workaround. A landmark case from the industry archives perfectly illustrates this power. A commercial appraiser named Tim Vining discovered that a major brokerage firm had stolen his custom field metrics and proprietary property analysis to use in their own corporate marketing materials without his permission. Instead of rolling over, Vining registered his appraisal report with the United States Copyright Office and sued the firm for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The defendants completely folded before the trial even ended, paying Vining a $50,000 settlement and legally acknowledging his valid copyright. This case established a powerful legal truth: appraisers own their investigative text and data compilations. The GSEs and their legal teams read cases like Tim Vining’s and realized they could not legally scrape our data archives to train their machine learning models without running into massive copyright lawsuits. Certification 25 is their solution, forcing appraisers to sign a certified, unilateral license agreement that gives away the exact copyright protections that won Vining his settlement.
Our actual legal exposure under this framework is not from the tech companies harvesting the data, but from the homeowners and borrowers whose private spaces we photograph and analyze. When a tech platform intercepts our proprietary appraisal analysis, including interior photographs, condition and quality ratings, functional obsolescence notes, or our estimated remaining economic life of a roof, that data gets funneled into a massive web of data brokers, insurance carriers, and third party risk pools. If a borrower is financially harmed because their private interior photos are circulating without permission, or if their homeowner insurance policy spikes or gets canceled because a confidential roof lifespan or functional obsolescence notation was leaked to an insurance risk pool, that consumer can and will file suit. Unrestricted third party data harvesting turns our reports into a consumer surveillance trap, and signing Certification 25 converts a passive corporate data scrape into a certified legal waiver where the appraiser takes all the blame when a consumer is harmed.
Furthermore, I disagree with Woody’s interpretation of the USPAP Ethics Rule. He claims that because Certification 25 deals with organizations authorized by the lender, these entities fall inside the “parties authorized by the client” exception under the Confidentiality section, and that what the client does with it downstream is outside the appraiser’s control. That logic completely ignores the timeline of contract law and the mechanism of the signature. Under legacy rules, a client leaking data downstream was indeed an independent, subsequent action where the appraiser remained entirely passive. But under UAD 3.6, the appraiser is being forced to actively sign a personal certification block that preauthorizes that data mining upfront, at the exact moment of signature. This active signature transforms a subsequent client leak into an active personal authorization by the appraiser. No one can claim they are taking reasonable steps to safeguard confidential assignment results under USPAP when they are actively signing a document that legally strips away their right to restrict that use. The two positions simply cannot coexist.
Woody freely admits that independent appraisers are being forced to provide a royalty free commercial license to their own data, and that this data is being used to train automated valuation models built to compete with them, slash their fees, and eventually replace them. He even warns that appraisers who refuse to touch UAD 3.6 are trading a low probability legal risk for a near certain loss of revenue. This is the ultimate corporate leverage: sign the waiver, feed the machine that replaces you, and accept 1990s pricing for skyrocketing liability, or get left behind.
But independent business owners who have completely stepped off the lending treadmill over the last two decades are proving that a highly profitable business model already exists outside of corporate frameworks. They focus entirely on private sector work, estate assignments, and non GSE clients who actually respect their data and their time. True independent appraisers are not cogs in a centralized data conveyor belt unless they choose to sign the paper that bolts them to it. Woody’s article inadvertently confirms that the contract loophole is real and the liability gap is real. I respect his willingness to engage in the broader data conversation, but the time to hold the line on the Ethics Rule is now.
- The Ghost in the Machine: How Tech Quietly Sabotages Appraisers - November 3, 2026
- Flock Camera Blunders and the Privacy Risks of UAD 3.6 - October 22, 2026
- Surviving UAD 3.6: Secondary Market Risk Protocols - October 19, 2026
Every article you write regarding 3.6 cements my decision to walk away from lender work. I refuse to play a role in throwing the consumer under the bus. Completing 3.6 assignments undermines the appraiser’s obligation to protect the public trust.
Walking away from the lending treadmill is a massive business decision, but you’re 100% right that we cannot protect the public trust while actively signing a corporate data license that throws the consumer under the bus.
When you shift your focus to private assignments, estates, divorces, tax litigation, etc. you run the show. You control the contract, you set your own pricing, & you actually look the homeowner in the eye knowing their data privacy is fully intact. It takes some hustle to pivot, but it beats staying chained to a mortgage machine built to strip out your hard earned expertise & use it to train the systems meant to replace us. Thank you for finding your backbone & choosing your professional ethics over an AMC checklist.
So what do we do? Not do 3.6
I sent it to the board in CT last week. This needs to be addressed and resolved
There is no solution because no governing body will push back against it
So what the hell are we supposed to do when they are forcing us to this stupid form ? Just quit ? Wtf
The GSE’s created 3.6 as a trap to all appraisers. What they want to do is steal our data, steal our photos, steal our analysis, steal our intellectual property, and when the timing is right BAMB!!!!!!!!!!!!! They will say that by completing an assignment on this form, that is not a form because you know it’s DYNAMIC, you have committed a USPAP violation, and your license will be taken. All of the state licensing boards are in on this as well. Once the appraisers are gone, or most of them the GSE’s will be able to do what they have long wanted to do which is replace us with AI. No more appraisals being a cog in the wheel of pesky corporate greed!
The opinions expressed above are mine and mine alone, unless you agree then I guess they are yours too. Any reproduction of these comments without the express written consent of myself or Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited.
So you went from typewriters to full tin foil hat mode just to mock the article. Pretty weak fallback when you can’t actually disprove the contract reality.
The GSEs didn’t build a dynamic dataset as some secret plot to trick the state boards & steal your license. They engineered Cert 25 as a legal workaround to scrape our data archives without getting slapped with copyright lawsuits.
Nobody is getting tricked here. It’s basic corporate leverage. Every time an appraiser signs that line, they’re feeding the exact automated valuation models built to cut our fees & replace us.
It’s not a grand conspiracy, Brent, it’s just business. But hey, keep making jokes about Major League Baseball while you sign away your own data rights.
Just finished reading both takes, and I have to say, your breakdown completely cleared up the confusion for me. Seeing your piece alongside Fincham’s made it incredibly obvious who actually has a grip on the reality of what is heading our way.
The corporate spin makes it sound like we are just overreacting to routine tech updates, but your analysis exposes exactly how cornered we are if we keep playing the bank game. For me, seeing how our hands get tied regarding consumer privacy was the final straw.
I am done supplying the data for my own replacement. Thanks to your insights, I have decided to completely wash my hands of GSE appraisal orders moving forward. It’s time to shift focus to private clients who actually value our expertise. Appreciate you standing up for the industry and spelling out the cold truth when everyone else is telling us to just roll over.
Hearing that my analysis helped clear up the confusion & gave you the clarity to completely wash your hands of GSE appraisal orders is exactly why I write these pieces. Welcome to the non-GSE & private side of the fence where you actually control your contract, pricing, & data privacy!
This breakdown answers so many questions, but it leaves me wondering: where on earth are the E&O companies on this? Why are the carriers staying so incredibly quiet while the GSEs force us into an uncovered liability gap? Are they just waiting for the first major courtroom disaster to deny a claim and leave an appraiser holding the bag out of pocket? It’s time for the insurance industry to stop hiding behind corporate compliance and tell us flat out where they stand on these consumer privacy risks.
OREP has already directly addressed this mess, so at least someone is paying attention.
Isaac Peck over there flat out sounded the alarm and made it clear that regular policies are strictly for valuation slip ups, not tech privacy breaches or consumer data leakae. The rest of the carriers need to stop staying quiet and tell us flat out where they stand.
If I were an insurance carrier, I wouldn’t touch these consumer privacy risks with a 10 foot pole either.
As Jeanie stated, OREP has already made it clear they don’t cover consumer privacy claims, which leaves us completely exposed. Our standard policies are strictly built to handle professional errors & omissions like an incorrect comp selection or a sketch slip up, not corporate data distribution or high tech tracking lawsuits. With unlicensed property data collectors entering properties & modern AI reverse engineering simple interior photos back to specific doorsteps, a massive data breach is completely inevitable. It’s absolutely not a question of if these massive consumer privacy claims will hit the courts, but when they’ll hit, & the financial damages are going to be incredibly hefty.
The carriers know the current dataset is an absolute liability minefield, which is exactly why they’re staying quiet & letting appraisers blindly take all the blame on the corporate front lines.
None of us should be doiong this…so WTF do we do?
I don’t think 99% of Appraisers care about this when it’s slow and the can’t pay their bills .
What if appraisers noted in their report that the borrower must agree, in writing, to that cert as well? I don’t really think the borrower knows… what could they/we do?
Tisha Keesy appraisers cannot add additional certs. Who is going to be responsible for obtaining that agreement and maintaining it? Not the appraiser
Just finished reading the whole breakdown, and I am seriously blown away by your analysis. You are completely nailing it as the true voice of working appraisers right now, and the entire industry owes you a massive thank you for holding the line.
Honestly, it is incredible that you are even putting this much energy, research, and hours of time into fighting a corporate framework that will not even affect your own business, since you already walked away and refuse to touch UAD 3.6. That shows true dedication to the craft and the independent business owners left on the treadmill.
Your breakdown makes the whole data trap so easy to understand, and we desperately need more appraisers to stop hiding and start speaking out for the profession exactly the way you are doing here. Thanks for standing on the front lines and giving us the ammunition we need to protect our data and our ethics.
Thanks so much for the support! It means a lot coming from a fellow appraiser on the front lines. Even if I’m skipping UAD 3.6, we’re all in this together & I can’t just watch our data get weaponized. We absolutely need more appraisers speaking out before the liability trap snaps shut. Appreciate you standing with me & helping spread the word!
You state that “Under legacy rules, they could only view the final document” really? Where does it state that? Just because it didn’t specifically state they could store it doesn’t mean they couldn’t. Just because it didn’t specifically state they could copy it, doesn’t mean they couldn’t.
It would seem that in order to protect confidentiality and comply with all ethics and USPAP to your satisfaction, the following would need be done.
1. Do not complete the report on any devise that had the potential for a data breach or be able to be hacked. So no computer that is connected to the internet. A typewriter would be an option as long as after each report you destroyed the ribbon so that no one could go back and reproduce the info typed. Maybe just handwritten would be best.
2. Since the appraiser is liable for anything the client does with the report, they will no longer get a hard copy of the report. The client will only be allowed to read the report and must do so in your presence. No copies will be made or distributed. Absolutely no notes will be able to be made by the client, no cell phones allowed and absolutely no cameras. Our proprietary data, analysis and photos must be protected at all costs.
3. A vault will be required in every appraisers office to store and maintain the original report along with the appraisers work file. The vault must adhere of course to the standards of a bank vault.
You’re missing the point. Reports distributed downstream of you, and without your permission, are treated differently in a lawsuit than a report where you expressly gave your permission for this. Big difference.
Brent, it’s all about basic contract law & whether you gave your permission.
Under the old rules, you just delivered a final report. If a lender or software portal took your data & photos later, that was on them. You never told them they could do it, so you still had your legal defenses if something went wrong.
Cert 25 changes everything because it’s an express written contract. The second you sign your name, you’re actively giving them a permanent license to scrape your interior photos, condition scores, & assignment results upfront. You’re legally saying, “Yes, I agree to let you use my data to train your AI models & share it with anyone you want.”
You cannot claim you’re protecting consumer privacy or following the USPAP Ethics Rule when you’re actively signing a paper that gives your data away. If a homeowner gets hurt because their private data gets leaked to an insurance risk pool, you can’t blame the bank downstream. You signed the waiver, so you take 100% of the blame. That’s the big difference Frank P. was talking about. It has nothing to do with typewriters & everything to do with who is liable when the trap snaps shut.
Once upon a time this profession was understood to be the safeguard of the mortgage world. For more than forty years I watched it absorb every accusation imaginable. If something went wrong anywhere in the process, the finger pointed toward the appraiser. I saw claims of wrongdoing, racism, incompetence, bias, negligence and every other label that could be invented. None of it surprised me because I understood the pattern. The profession has always been the easiest target because it is the most regulated, the most scrutinized and the most exposed.
That is why the current push to add even more exposure is so troubling. It is being presented as minimal, just a little, nothing to worry about. I have heard that same sales pitch for decades. Every new layer of oversight has always been introduced as small and harmless, yet each one has carried consequences that fall squarely on the appraiser. The people promoting these changes are not the ones who will carry the liability. They are not the ones who will be blamed when something goes wrong. They are simply shifting risk away from themselves and placing it on the one profession already carrying more than anyone else in the mortgage industry.
For me, this is not only about the mechanics of the new exposure. It is about the principle. The most regulated profession in the mortgage process should not be asked to shoulder additional risk created by others. Appraisers have always been the gatekeepers of integrity. That is why the profession has been targeted for minimization and even elimination. If you remove the gatekeeper, you remove the last independent checkpoint standing between the public and the institutions that benefit from speed and profit rather than accuracy and fairness.
I have watched every imaginable attempt to weaken the profession. I have watched the narrative shift, the blame redirected, the pressure applied, the oversight tightened and the responsibility expanded. And through all of it, the profession continued to do its job. That is the part that never gets acknowledged. The very institutions appraisers are charged with protecting are often the ones pushing hardest to dilute the role. That alone tells you the profession is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
I am not complaining. I am stating what decades of experience have made impossible to ignore. When you have lived through the entire cycle, you recognize the pattern. And you recognize when the next chapter is being written.
Remember the Mel Gibson movie “We Were Soldiers”? I do.
This problem, in one form or another, is much, much larger than the mortgage lending industry. It is pervasive globally, in all product and services industries. The digital leviathans see somebody making a profit, they’re going to come after it.
As with all addictions, we appraisers have been addicted to the pathology of appraising for the lending industry for many decades. We thought it was a good thing and maybe it was for a few years, but it hasn’t been for at least a couple of decades, but we keep believing that we can make it a good thing again. Maybe you guys can and I wish you luck. We used to think that we were somebody or at least we believed that we existed as independent, stand-alone professionals. We are not allowed to believe that about ourselves any longer and the moment we do they’ll do something instantly to chop that thought process off. Our education, experience, expertise, work ethic, etc., are now worthless in the minds of the digicrats. My renewal comes up next month. I’ll miss what was, but not what is. Again good luck to those of you who remain.
Is anyone adding a statement. There has to be Something we can do to protect ourselves.
Statements won’t overcome Cert. 25.
There is no protection because Certification 25 removes every defense an appraiser once had. The moment you sign it, you authorize third parties to copy, store, analyze and redistribute your work. You cannot claim confidentiality. You cannot claim copyright. You cannot claim misuse. You cannot claim downstream harm. You have already granted permission.
USPAP cannot override a contract you agreed to. No wording in the report can cancel it. No procedure can shield you from it. Once you sign, the exposure is built in and permanent.
That is why there is no protection.
I’ll wait and see. My wonderful software provider is ACI, who completely blew this rollout. I’ll be migrating to SFREP as soon as I have time. The deciding factor for me is that they are not going to be completely cloud based, so your private party GPAR reports live on your system only. Much of my work is for private parties, and I don’t want someone scraping data downstream. As far as 3.6 goes, it seems like a massive class action lawsuit waiting to happen. There are so many serious privacy problems here, not just for owners but for tenants as well. Whan an owner is refinancing, the tenant is told they must allow the appraiser in to take photos. Those photos end up all over the internet, without the tenant’s permission? I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts there are some serious class action attorneys already circling this train wreck. The size of the target is just too large to pass up. Every lender doing business with Fannie and Freddie? Buckle up.
Please show me in 2.6 where the use of data or photos is prohibited!
You’re missing the big picture. Subject to more than one regulator.
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/-/media/files/nrf/nrfweb/knowledge-pdfs/glba—cybersecurity-governance-materials/gramm-leach-bliley-act-glba-privacy-data-security.pdf
Brent I just sold all your home data from your previous appraisal, to a data broker whom sold it to your insurer, and will sell this data to other to be determined parties into the future. They’ll retain the data for as long as you live and you can not opt out. Just a friendly question; How do you personally feel about this? Let’s take this down to the most simlistic of ethical question possible. Is this ethical behavior of me to have sold your home data from your appraisal?
I notice you didn’t answer my question. Please show me in 2.6 where is the use of data or photos prohibited?
If you sold my data then you have committed a USPAP violation.
There is a much larger world out there than the uspap book. Ethics is about right vs wrong. Reindeer code anyways. If they could change the privacy clauses, they would. Those are not so easy to manipulate.
You’re missing the point of the question. I’m a non appraiser, whom manages appraisers. I am not subjected to uspap. Uspap is not legally binding to me. It is only legally binding to appraiser license holders and nobody else. I just sold your data, how do you feel about it? Photos and all, I sold everything.
This is TAF’s fault anyways for not stepping in. Come to think of it, let’s check in with TAF. We’re up to 2024 tax records now. They have millions of dollars worth of flex cash. They could have provided legal advice or mounted a challenge.
https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/232493621_202412_990_2026030223963178.pdf
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
232493621
Wow. They are really moving. Winning again. Numbers only go one direction for TAF. Up, up, up.
/ They’ve made ‘bold changes’. As of 2024 there were 4,000 possible parea interested persons. Hardly enough to sub the headcount attrition. / DEI focus statements, no tax filling is complete without one. / More stakeholders. Cool. That means even less influence from the licensed appraisers. / Hey now, if they can afford legal counseling on AI why can’t they call someone up for a legitimate legal review of this certification issue? They are paying for high end lawyers, to advise them, not to give legal advice. / The million dollar parachute for Bunton on the way out. I can’t believe they show up and work for free next to people getting paid that much. Peddling influence is more like it. / Is that five million in book sales? You know what, come to think of it, I need another ethics book. The fancy big one with the hard binder and fresh virgin paper that costs more. / Odd, they keep spending more and more on lobbyists year after year. Do you think they’ll ever stop by the small business administration? / They’re moving into Greenland. The next frontier in the valuation space. / 560k on parea scholarships. Where are they? I’ve never met one. Have you? Has anyone? This is like the twilight zone, they send all these people through the front door, but we never see them leave and come back out. / Compensation consultants? Where you pay someone to advise you, how much you should get paid? Hold on, I’m kind of liking this concept. Can we get one of those? We could really use one of those. / Money well spent. Simply amazing.
How did you get a copy of my data and photos if you aren’t the appraiser? If you got them from the appraiser and you are not identified as an intended user, I’d say the appraiser would be in trouble. If you got them from the client, then you are free to do with it as you see fit. I don’t have a problem with my photos being on the internet, if I did I wouldn’t let some take photos.
I’m remembering the dozens of times I took interior photos of peoples homes while they were meandering around in bath robes, flip flops, had not cleaned up, lifted toilet seats, just a total mess. Sorry appraiser, we were not ready for you, maybe we should roll this out until later. Oh don’t worry, these are confidential photos only for the purpose of mortgage lending and nothing else.
‘If you got them from the client, then you are free to do with it as you see fit.’ You’re not ready to have this conversation. You know nothing of consumer privacy regulations. What home owner in their right mind talks this way? They don’t. The appraiser is identified by the FTC as being a banking institution, even if we are just one person doing one single appraisal and nothing more. We are bound by a duty of care principal, all applicable federal and state regulations, and other relevant jurisdictional authorities wherever we provide the appraisal service, to comply with all their rules and regulations. Do you imagine somehow that consumer privacy rules do not exist or are not applicable to appraisers because they may not be mentioned in the USPAP book?
You’ve just discriminated against anyone and everyone whom does not want their interior home photos posted online, denied them mortgage loans for having those personal opinions about privacy. You have denied them fair access for having personal privacy concerns regarding interior photos of their own home appearing online or being shared with data brokers. You have denied them an opt out mechanism. What’s comes next?
Search this term online, don’t forget the quotation marks;
consumer privacy laws “interior photos”
I think I have asked you three times now and you refuse to answer so I will pose it one more time. Where in 2.6 does it explicitly state that use data or photos is prohibited!
You are ignorant to the law. Presuming USPAP is somehow a binding law that shields you from all the other existing laws that apply to everyone else out there. Not the case. TAF has authority over no body except you. They do not have jurisdictional authority over lenders, borrowers, sellers, or anyone. They don’t even really have any authority over licensed appraisers, except that they provide a framework for rules an appraiser must follow, and only while they are presenting as an appraiser. TAF does not have any authority to over ride any jurisdictional authority, local, county, state, federal, or otherwise. They most certainly do not have authority to over ride an entire nations worth of citizens existing privacy laws and constitutional rights.
Let’s approach this slightly differently. One person can not over ride another persons constitutionally enshrined rights to privacy by making an affirmative statement they have the right to ignore another persons privacy expectations, to ignore their fourth amendment rights. To do so is unlawful seizure, a warrant less search.
Although the consumer and lender agree to a certain measure of informational sharing in order to facilitate a mortgage loan, nobody in the process except the consumer themselves has authority over the consumers constitutionally protected right to privacy. If the consumer wants to give their privacy away, that’s their business. A business entity can not defacto over ride an individuals constitutional rights with a disclosure. Even if the individual is under duress this is a constitutional violation, especially if they are under duress.
The appraiser can not assign permission for peoples private data to be shared in an open ended manner with an open ended set of future other parties.
The home is not a public space. A place of residence is not a qualified public square or thoroughfare where people may not have a full expectation of privacy. Constitutional law on these matters has revolved around the sanctity of an American citizens home since the very beginning of law in this country.
There is no place safer in terms of privacy expectations or more clearly established as a protected space than a persons individual place of dwelling. There is at least two hundred and fifty years of case law in this country alone to back that up. It is fourth on the list of constitutional protections, the right to privacy. The only things more important than right to privacy in our constitution is the right to free speech, to bear arms in defense of liberty, to not have army soldiers or militia quartered in our homes without our voluntary consent. Then comes privacy. It carries more constitutional weight than due process itself.
This certification seeks to render home owners with less rights than leasees, tenants, or family members whom may live in a home, yet do not own it.
If challenged properly using lawyers whom understand privacy rights, this certification will be struck down. You can not hand someone a piece of paper that says, oh by the way, this one service out of the other hundred services we provided you in order to originate a mortgage loan, also means you have relinquished your rights to privacy away forever, that data brokers can and will retain your private home photo and other data forever with infinite data shelf life. The home owner is not the one signing the appraisal! Someone other than the home owner, can not sign away the home owners rights. The appraiser has no jurisdiction over the home owner!
These are basic legal principals. Cert 25 appears to stand in violation of Article 1 section X. They’re turning the appraisal into a bill of attainder that strips people of their constitutional right to fourth amendment privacy. The appraiser nor the lender nor the GSE entities, does not have the legal ability to do that. The appraiser can not sign away an individual consumers rights, just because they provided that consumer one of their services.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Appraisers that defend this also have an additional ethical challenge that arises. You are no longer in compliance with the peer standard. We object.
How about you write another 1000-word essay and not answer my question for the fourth, fifth, or six time.
Brent. I have a copyright statement on my reports. That bars anyone from legally using my data and conclusions for ANYTHING outside the certification statement without my consent.
Brent I can explain the legal concepts to you. I can not understand them for you.
Maybe re read the initial three to four articles on the matter.
Brent, we could do what you said. Or we could have meaningful professional representation from the appraisal trade groups and insurance companies, whom may actually place consumer privacy and appraisers intellectual rights ahead of the desires of the tech companies, data brokers, and institutional mortgage interests. Otherwise known as consumer protection safeguards.
Clarify the chain of data, who’s affecting these rule changes. Cert 25 is not only a set up for future data exploitation, to create a saleable product in the future. Also a cover for current data exploitation which is ongoing by the same companies furnishing appraisal software, handling appraisal reports, tech companies down the line. They’ve been selling appraisal data for some time now.
The corporations whom are exploiting the data obviously had a hand in writing a special exception for their current and anticipated future use of appraisal data. There has also emerged a symbiotic relationship with the corporate and franchise model appraisers whom have effectively cornered the market for lending work, from amc’s to self proclaimed non amc’s whom function exactly like amc’s, they have long sought to use these sorts of tools for their own efficiency and profitability gains. Rather than creating supportive networks to support small business, as was the previous functional standard in this industry, these new players grew into corporations themselves by eliminating independent appraisal competition in the market space.
In turn they have nullified the legislatively mandated reasons for independent appraisal integration in the first place. When everyone puts their own interest first while sheltering behind a label of ‘independent non advocacy.’ That’s not how things work in a franchise and corporate model, what the boss says goes or the employees get fired. Enter appraiser blacklisting, disproportionate assignment trends, non transparent fee skimming, gratuity fees and rubber stamp approvals, much of which is now automated, in a pay to play environment. The new operational standard for ‘mortgage lending appraisals’.
Consumer protection. By being a non advocate, the appraiser is supposed to be an inseparable advocate for fairness and honest business dealings. The party whom would not be swayed or influenced by special interests or corporate demands.
The affirmative commentary from private appraisers whom still adhere to a higher peer standard, whom share and recommend success to other independent appraisers. Provides a necessary perspective. A focus on individual people rather than corporate gain. Meanwhile in mortgage lending it’s officially a free for all. Misappropriating appraisal and consumer data, rewriting the appraisal practice standards book every other year to suit their own special interest, putting independent small businesses out left and right. Check your task manager and background processes, the appraisal software and transmission portals appear to be a data sharing utility far upstream of the CU repository. If that’s true they’re getting the data, whether appraisers do mortgage lending work, or sign the new cert or not.
Current residential appraiser licensee headcount is near 30k or under, falling rapidly. 5k or more hung their licenses last year alone, nearly all of them residential. Down from the previous 120k licenses, most of which were residential appraisal small business owners twenty years ago. The destructive force of centralization, somewhere in the range of 70k small businesses gone, likely a 100k or more which where never allowed to come into existence.
The function of the appraisal position within lending markets is supposed to provide a safeguard to financial stability by way of an independent checks and balances operational model. This in turn provides consumer protection as consumers engage with the system. Special interests and conflicts of interests have hollowed out this industry, set checks and balances aside for a centrally controlled housing system that could be more readily manipulated, controlled, and monetized. Hardly recognizable from the initial expectation of Appraisal Independence Requirements.
When does the focus shift back to a functional state of putting consumer protection first? An industry wide desire to promote small businesses rather than opportunistically devour or eliminate them for corporate gain until there are no small businesses left? This new franchise model. Consumer choice? There is no choice. Consumers are on their own.
I know, I know, we’re supposed to be talking about copywriting and such. I don’t see how the related case law applies in the real world. No individual appraiser could ever afford to go against these corporations legal teams. The appraisal trade groups whom should fund these challenges, are aligned with the corporate legal teams. Spider man himself would say it’s true; There is no way home. Carry on, thank you for reading.
No disrespect but Brent is missing the point entirely. This is an appraiser problem and only an appraiser problem. It is not shared, it is not collective, and it is not something that can be delegated or softened. The current regulatory environment has created an impossible condition. An appraiser cannot comply with two sets of rules that contradict one another, especially when both originate from the same general sphere of authority. No one in administration on either side wants to acknowledge this. They will not touch it. Ancillary industries are already backing away because they see what is coming.
So let us stop pretending there is a workable middle ground. The appraiser has only two choices. One, continue mortgage appraisal work and knowingly violate USPAP, expose oneself to litigation, risk loss of license, and face insurers who are already rewriting policies to limit coverage. Two, stop doing mortgage appraisals and effectively end one’s career while simultaneously giving regulators the perfect justification to eliminate mortgage appraisals altogether due to a manufactured shortage of appraisers.
Unless someone is prepared to survive solely on private work, which would immediately be flooded by appraisers abandoning mortgage assignments, this is a complete lose/lose scenario. There is no strategic workaround. There is no clever operational fix. The only viable path is legal action against the absurd reality of two related governing bodies issuing rules that directly conflict and force appraisers into unavoidable violation of the law. That requires money, which requires unity, and unity has been the fatal weakness of this profession for decades.
Well, TAF has already gone on record stating that an appraiser completing an assignment using 3.6 is NOT violating USPAP. Since they are the ones who write and enforce USPAP that’s who I am going to believe.
Well Brent, everyone has broken out their crayon box for you and explained the details. Some men you just can’t reach.
Well pull out your crayon box just one more time and answer the question, where in 2.6 does it explicitly state that use data or photos is prohibited!
I think you should review cert. 21 in the existing 2.6 report. The last line states “Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party (including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media”. The phrase “including but not limited to” provides coverage for appraisers regarding a wide variety of other parties in the event the lender distributes the report to anyone who has no legitimate reason to have it. When this information ends up in some homeowner’s insurance file, and their rates triple because of it, the lender could be sued. The new Cert. 25 removes this built-in protection, by getting you to sign a waiver basically abdicating everything Cert. 21 covers for you. So now you can be sued when some idiot downstream decides to post your photos on the internet, and you have no defense. As it sits today, you’d be protected from such downstream antics, but with 3.6, they’re making you acknowledge and share responsibility for whatever someone later does with your report, and everything in it.
So you like the phrase ” Consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party (including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media.”
You’re either a GSE employee or work for an AMC. Nobody can be that obtuse.
I don dot work for either. What’s amusing is how everyone avoids answering my very simple question.
Read Cert. 21 of your current 2.6 form. That’s what’s in place today. It provides some protection for you. To answer your question directly, it does specifically state in the current certification that the lender can distribute some of your information to certain parties, and it names them. However, it does not allow unlimited and non-recourse distribution of everything in your appraisal. Cert. 25 does exactly that, and you will be signing it, giving specific permission for anyone to do anything with your data and photos. I am certain that you can discern the difference between those two scenarios, with or without crayons.
Where in cert 21 does it explicitly state that “it does not allow unlimited and non-recourse distribution of everything in your appraisal?”
Brent, since Eric Kretz brought out the crayon box, let’s try drawing this out with the blue crayon so it’s impossible to miss: IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SAY THIS. It doesn’t have to, because that’s not how law or real life works.
Think about it this way: when you check into a hotel room, your room key gives you permission to stay there for the night. Does that key card need to explicitly state, “This card does not give you permission to live here permanently, take ownership of the room, tear down the drywall, & sell the television to strangers downstream”? No, because property law & theft laws already cover that by default. You only have permission to do exactly what is stated, & absolutely nothing more.
Under the old rules, Cert 21 only gave the client permission to manage that specific document inside the lending loop. Because you never signed away your intellectual property, federal copyright law protected your work by default. It didn’t need to explicitly say “no unlimited downstream scraping” on the paper because unauthorized data harvesting was already a violation of federal law, which is exactly why the defendants folded & paid a $50,000 settlement in the Tim Vining case.
The massive change with Cert 25 is that the GSEs engineered a contract workaround to force you to sign away those default legal protections upfront. You’re actively signing an express contract that gives them a permanent, royalty free license to scrape your interior photos, condition scores, & assignment results to train AVMs. Stop looking for what the old form didn’t say, & realize that the new form forces you to sign a certified legal waiver that strips your defenses & leaves you holding 100% of the liability out of pocket.
I’m guessing Class Valuation….only someone working for Class can be this thick.
Let’s pretend you’re right Brent. Let’s pretend that Cert 21 was ambiguous and vague, and it was just an ‘implied’ restriction against widespread unauthorized document redistribution.
The 3.6 Cert 25 is a wide open endorsement for anyone to do what they want with the document, forever, with no legal recourse. All of the liability is on the appraiser with a signed certification waving any defense we would have. With this logic, why not just completely remove the Intended User? This has been explained in great detail here by people far smarter than me.
Is that something you’re comfortable with? A new form and data collection system going wild with your intellectual property and work products?
Probably so, because your contrarian commentary paints you as a disinformation troll or just plain ignorant. Or both.
At this point it is almost comical how many people, including me, are trying to do the right thing and bending over backward to give Brent clear, patient, professional explanations. We keep assuming he simply does not understand, so we keep rephrasing the same basic points for his benefit. Yet somehow every straightforward explanation slips right past him as if written in a foreign language.
The only conclusion left is that he is not confused at all. He is just yanking everyone’s chain and enjoying the attention.
If he truly is an appraiser, which seems increasingly unlikely, remedial training would do him a world of good. In a friendly way of course, but the gap between what is being explained and what he pretends not to grasp is so wide it could qualify as its own special competency exam.
I’m entertained. Are you not entertained?
Appraisers could always hit the wall with something, see if it’s rejected or not.
I really don’t know. What I do know is that matters of privacy are of the utmost importance. They are right now reaching a crescendo on the national stage. This one has a good chance of making it’s way to the national news circuit.
As a home owner and mortgage borrower myself, this is a very chilling moment. We spend our entire lives avoiding the data brokers. The thought of them having access to interior home photos for whatever use they felt like. Very chilling. I hope people bothered to watch the privacy video I posted in the last thread. Watched that again last night, there are a dozen direct correlations to the data an appraiser may provide, and how it can be mis used. It starts out slow talking about traffic cameras then evolves so quickly. It’s really shocking, even for people whom think they know what’s going on. Data brokerage of this nature is evil.
The fundamental question is posed; If mortgage lenders had enough data to originate loans then, why would they need more data now? Why would they need expanded permissions to use the data which was previously sufficient with at least somewhat sensible data constraints and privacy clauses?
Great comments Mad. Well, that’s why we just today checked in on TAF’s latest available tax returns. From 2024. They can afford lawyers. They do routinely pay for lawyers. It is their obligation to retain and hire the appropriate lawyers to give actual legal advice on the matter. This is their responsibility. A not legal advice statement is insufficient.
How about the uproar around Flock Cameras?
Don’t mind them at all
You’re exactly right, Pat, the pushback is massive because a huge segment of the public recognizes how unconstitutional this warrantless mass tracking really is. Communities are actively tracking & map tagging these systems on sites like deflock because ALPRs turn public streets into open air checkpoints where your daily movements are logged, stored, & sold without your consent.
There’s a direct parallel here to what’s happening with UAD 3.6. Just like these surveillance networks strip away fourth amendment privacy expectations in the public square, Cert 25 tries to strip them away inside a consumer’s private home. Both systems rely on unrecoursed data harvesting to turn everyday citizens into surveillance targets for corporate profit.
As for Brent not minding them at all… shocker. I didn’t expect anything less from a guy who’s ready to invite corporate data miners into his living room & give them a permanent key to the place! If you’re willing to sign away your own data rights & your clients’ privacy, a warrantless tracking dragnet on the street probably looks like a perk.
Maybe I should not post this again. A cartoon illustrating the nature of data brokerage. 2018. Escalated quickly.
We’ve got enough data flowing through the system for an acceptable amount of forward progress, justice and accountability. The people do not need any more data to accomplish reasonable goals for every day societal activity. The only thing actually missing is the accountability. How long will the public continue to play along? An ever increasing surveillance data capture network, consistently and increasingly exploiting every day people, from data to written to voice to visual, movement tracking , behavioral and financial pattern recognition. Mysteriously incapable of accomplishing anything other than increasing corporate revenue? These tools can only be used to drive up peoples monthly billing, monopolize markets, move lifelong dedicated professionals in their fields out, erase their income potential? To farm taxpayer funding profit from a myriad of billion dollar government expenditures that never ever get fulfilled or finalized anywhere? Who’s even buying this in the first place? I’m about to buy another Nick Shirley t shirt right now.
The problems that actually needs addressed; existing law and traditional performance expectations being enforced. Transparent process needs to be mandated. Removing and penalizing those whom take advantage of conflicts of interests, creating unfair situational advantages at others expense, not competing by merit. Adherence to contracts. An honest conversation that the hype behind the tech advancements, not based upon a community interest, will not be beneficial to most people. I think we’re having that conversation right now.
All most appraisers ever wanted to do was run independent small businesses and be honest people. The few whom have gamed the system to create their advantageous positions did so at the expense of other appraisers, honest ethic and legitimate consumer protection. Our lives have been transposed by dishonest and self serving process. There is no fair balance in representation for every day regular working residential appraisers or the consumers they hoped to serve. This is not what most appraisers signed up for. Hence the continually declining licensee headcount. Diluting licensing requirements or increasing monetization of the process, with no benefits passed to the appraisers doing the actual work, will result in nothing other than continued attrition and ideological rejection of the allegedly modernized process
An article by Woody Fincham? Lmao. Enough said. The national enquirer is more trusting.
If it violates USPAP, then no state complaint is necessary. Just knowledge of the appraisal by the state, and signed certification.
FNMA and MISMO dont get to rewrite USPAP, or sound appraisal practices.