> The Appraiser Coach > AMC Guide > OREP E&O ★★★★★ “They are knowledgeable, professional, and understand urgency.” – Joe Thweatt

Class Valuation Faces Class-Action Suit Over Appraiser Payments

 by Frank Andorka, Managing Editor

Class Valuation, one of the largest appraisal management companies (AMCs) in the United States, is the latest AMC to be sued over the issue of appraisal fees and fee transparency.

Clayton Bernholtz, a Florida resident, filed a class-action lawsuit June 11, 2026, in Broward County Circuit Court against Class Valuation and CrossCountry Mortgage, alleging the companies overcharge consumers for home appraisals through undisclosed fees, in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

Bernholtz also accuses Class Valuation of unjust enrichment, alleging the company pockets the difference between what it charges consumers and what it actually pays appraisers. He is asking the court to certify the case as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, which would allow other affected borrowers to join the suit.

Originally filed in Broward County, Florida, the case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:26-cv-61978).

Many appraisers had hoped this issue would be resolved without litigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had been expected to issue guidance before the new administration took over. In its current weakened state, it is unlikely such guidance will be coming, which leaves plaintiffs with no alternative but to sue.

Furthermore, the recent National Association of Realtors (NAR) settlement and litigation provided both motivation and inspiration for attorneys and consumers to sue over opaque fee arrangements.

Bernholtz’s case is the third pending class-action lawsuit that has arisen out of appraisal fee transparency, including Timmins v. Clear Capital, Core Valuation Management and Rocket Mortgage in California, and Arnold v. Appraiser Nation, also in Florida.

A fourth case, Golar v. Class Valuation LLC in Georgia, was dismissed without prejudice at the request of both parties.

The Allegations
Essentially, Bernholtz’s allegations echo the core arguments of the other class-action lawsuits facing AMCs and lenders in this space — CrossCountry Mortgage breached its contract with him, he claims, while Class Valuation, as an appraisal management company, engaged in “unlawful, unfair and deceptive practices relating to the ‘appraisal fees’ they charge mortgage borrowers.”

While buying a home is “one of the landmark financial burdens faced by Americans,” Bernholtz argues that saving up for the down payment is not the only burden on today’s potential homeowners. Additionally, the overwhelming closing costs can pose their own burden, especially when, as his lawsuit puts it, those costs “all too often are full of junk fees.” One such fee, he argues, is the appraisal fee charged to potential homeowners.

“While a borrower may pay an appraisal fee ranging from $450 to [more than] $1,000, the AMCs pay the appraiser only a fraction of this fee, deceptively keeping the remainder for themselves,” the lawsuit states. “The appraisers, not Defendants, perform the required appraisal. Class Valuation provides no tangible benefit to borrowers in the appraisal process.”

As other similar cases have argued, Bernholtz suggests the idea of hiding an AMC’s involvement flies in the face of what is purportedly a free-market system. AMCs are not required to compete in the marketplace the way that other vendors do, so consumers cannot shop for their services, nor do they know what the AMC will charge. The result is a dynamic where AMCs like Class Valuation have the opportunity to shop for the lowest-cost appraisal and then pocket the difference, Bernholtz suggests. While he understands that an appraisal of the property is necessary, Bernholtz believes AMC involvement should be disclosed at the time of the borrower’s loan estimate.

“In contrast, CrossCountry represents the appraisal fee as going to the appraiser,” the lawsuit contends, citing loan estimate language stating only, ‘We may order an appraisal to determine the property’s value and charge you for this appraisal.’ However, CrossCountry in fact charges for much more than the appraisal.”

Bernholtz is suggesting that he and a class of consumers (i.e., homebuyers who paid appraisal fees) “have suffered, and will continue to suffer, by being required to pay misrepresented, inflated ‘appraisal fees.'”

(story continues below)

(story continues)

The Facts
As Bernholtz points out, borrowers can’t shop for their own appraisers in most homebuying transactions. Instead, the lender picks an appraiser and bills the fee to the borrower, typically before closing. He contends the only way to completely avoid an appraisal fee is to pay for a home in cash.

Under federal law, appraisers and lenders must be separated to avoid another housing crisis like the one that devastated the industry in 2008. That’s the whole reason companies like Class Valuation exist, although Bernholtz argues companies like Class Valuation “provide no benefit to borrowers, and only a limited benefit to lenders like CrossCountry.”

The lawsuit goes on to defend appraisers, saying that it’s the appraisers who do all the work while the AMCs reap much of the benefits. It acknowledges that good appraisals take time and considerable effort and, as such, should be compensated fairly.

“Even though the AMCs provide no benefit to borrowers and have no apparent role in the actual appraisal services, the AMCs enrich themselves by obtaining inflated fees that far exceed the actual appraisal cost,” the lawsuit states. “Recent research indicates that [AMCs] typically retain more than 60 percent of appraisal fees. Stated differently, [AMCs] typically retain more than what they pay appraisers — meaning that borrowers’ appraisal fees are typically more than double the actual appraisal cost.”

As for CrossCountry Mortgage (the other named defendant in the lawsuit), Bernholtz argues they should have disclosed how much of the appraisal fee the AMC kept as opposed to what they paid the appraisers.

“Instead, CrossCountry forced plaintiff to pay an upfront fee of $700, representing that it was charging for only an appraisal, when it categorically was not,” the lawsuit says. “Instead, CrossCountry charged Plaintiff an appraisal fee and an undisclosed management fee.”

In closing, Bernholtz asks for the two classes to be split:

1) A breach-of-contract class against CrossCountry, on the theory that its loan estimate promised to charge borrowers only for the appraisal itself, not an undisclosed fee to Class Valuation; and

2) An FDUTPA class against Class Valuation, to recover the fees it collected from borrowers.

Class Valuation has asked for three extensions to prepare its defense, while CrossCountry Mortgage moved Aug. 14, 2026, to dismiss the breach-of-contract count against it with prejudice. In its motion, CrossCountry argues the loan estimate is a regulatory disclosure under the Truth in Lending Act, not a binding contract, and that even if it were, it’s unenforceable because it was never signed by CrossCountry, as required under Florida’s Banking Statute of Frauds. The lender also contends the loan estimate’s “we may order an appraisal” language is permissive and doesn’t restrict how it splits the fee with an appraisal management company, and that Bernholtz’s damages theory targets money Class Valuation allegedly kept, not any harm CrossCountry itself caused.

The motion doesn’t seek dismissal of the FDUTPA or unjust enrichment counts against Class Valuation. CrossCountry also points to Bernholtz’s closing disclosure, which shows he ultimately received a $50 credit against his $700 appraisal fee — evidence, the lender argues, that he didn’t overpay for his own appraisal.

At press time, CrossCountry’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract count remains pending before the court.

One way to address borrowers’ concerns — including Bernholtz and the plaintiffs in the other suits — is simple: Separate the AMC fee and appraisal fee in loan disclosures. This would disclose AMC involvement to the borrower early on and would transform the AMC fee into a flat fee, which would discourage them from paying the appraiser as little as possible.

Conclusion
Now that the courts have settled a class-action suit against the NAR in late 2024 over price-fixing and transparency of real estate agents, AMCs and lenders have taken notice. They can no longer be assured of prevailing, so they are watching these new cases with care and caution.

This case is just one of several working their way through the court system with the same goal in mind: forcing AMCs and lenders to be more transparent about how they bundle fees. Regulators haven’t intervened yet, but the more such cases are filed, the harder it becomes for them to ignore the issue. A win for Bernholtz could force greater transparency in appraisal fees — and put downward pressure on the fees AMCs collect going forward.

About the Author
Frank Andorka is the Managing Editor of Working RE magazine, published by OREP Insurance, a leading provider of E&O insurance for appraisers nationwide. Andorka has more than two decades of experience as a writer and editor and is based out of Cleveland, Ohio.