|
|||
|
|||
Editor’s Note: A
large lender is giving appraisers an ultimatum, saying in effect, violate USPAP
or be placed on a “do not use” list. John Dingeman is one such appraiser who
finds himself between that rock and that hard place. But he understands his
rights and is fighting back.
Talk about being between a
rock and a hard place.
John Dingeman, a Certified
Appraiser in Ariz., recently received a letter from Chase, citing “possible
USPAP violations” and demanding a response within 21 days or else. The or
else is exile to Chase’s Ineligible Appraiser List. Appraisers who
have faced a similar fate say that orders from appraiser management companies
(AMCs) dry up almost overnight as a result. Not only do orders stop that are
associated with that particular lender but all orders cease.
Here’s why: AMCs can’t take the chance that a loan, any loan, might end up
at that lender someday- so they simply turn off the spigot and skip to the
next appraiser on the call list; it makes sense given the consolidation taking
place leaving fewer (big box) lenders controlling a larger share of the
business.
Fighting Back Because, in his words, he was threatened and intimidated with “placement on the Chase Ineligible Appraiser List” if he failed to respond within 21 days, Dingeman says he was compelled to send copies of the letter and his response to various state and federal regulatory agencies for action, as well as to the FBI and the Chase Appraisal Compliance Officer. “This type of intimidation placed upon appraisers is inexcusable and should not be tolerated. Chase should be accountable for knowing what USPAP requires,” Dingeman says.
Other problems
cited by Dingeman are that he was not furnished with a copy of the appraisal, so
he has no idea whether the bank has a true and complete copy. He also was not
provided any information on the reviewer so can not be certain about their
qualifications or geographic competency. Hagar, the presenter for the webinar How to Limit Liability, Maintain Independence, and Fight Influence, says it is critical for appraisers to know and understand their rights. “John and I talked extensively about his problem including the ethics and privacy issues,” said Hagar. “He is correct. There is a difference between a ‘client’ and ‘intended users.’ From my point of view, Chase was an intended user but not the client. While they may have obtained a copy of an appraisal, from someone, it does not make them the client. Since Chase did not ‘communicate’ with the appraiser at the time the assignment was created, nor identified as the client when the report was created, Chase does not appear to be the client. Issues like these are exactly why we created the Appraiser Independence webinars.” Dingeman wonders what’s next. “The question now is what are the nine agencies that I sent a copy of this letter and my response to going to do about it,” said Dingeman. “They have a responsibility to the public and should be knocking on Chase’s door to find out just exactly how many of these letters have been mailed out. If these large banks are allowed to continue to threaten and intimidate appraisers and send every report to a regulatory board for complaint, as they threatened to, there will be no appraisers left.”
According to
Dingeman, the saddest part is that banks do have a legal and fair remedy: order
a retrospective appraisal with an effective date the same as the original
appraisal. “This would engage the appraiser directly and make the bank the
client,” he said. HTML Comment Box is loading comments... | |||
ATTENTION: You are receiving WRE Online News because you opted in at WorkingRE.com or purchased E&O insurance from OREP. WRE Online News Edition provides news-oriented content twice a month. The content for WRE Special Offer Editions is provided by paid sponsors. If you no longer wish to receive these emails from Working RE, please use the link found at the bottom of this newsletter to be removed from our mailing list. |