Appraisers' Free Forum

***Also posted as a new thread on the AF***

From time to time I will have a review client request a field review but provide only partial copies of the appraisal to be reviewed. The missing pages are often quite significant, page one of the URAR missing but other pages intact including the sales comparison grid. These tend to be two or three year old appraisals and the client claims the missing pages can not be retreived. My standard procedure on these cases is to refuse the review assignment but accept a retrospective appraisal assignment on the subject property to be reported on the old 2055 with extraordinary assumptions made. The client is always agreeable with the altered scope of work.

Recently I have been taking assignments in which I am comparing a field review report to the original appraisal report in order to determine relative credibility, among other things. I have found that some review appraisers will conduct field reviews on incomplete appraisals.

My take on these is that the subsequent field review report is not credible as the complete original appraisal was not available nor reviewed; therefore the field review is deficient and a new appraisal should be obtained.

What do you guys think? Does anybody here do field reviews on materially incomplete appraisal reports?

I would do as you are doing. You can't perform a meaningful review analysis on a report that is lacking in pertinant data, unless that is the point of the review. However, a report missing an entire page of the URAR is likely not an error on the part of the orginal appraiser.

Ditto Joker and Mike Kennedy Skibs, but you already knew that.

The other forum taught us; dangle bait and somebody will bite.

I sometimes wonder if parts of the appraisal are missing, but how would you know? If you have the URAR, sketch, maps and pictures, how are you to know what else is missing? See addenda? Most of the time they have the same BS canned addenda page that makes you wonder if there is another addenda page with something relevant.

Ditto on Skibs approach. If I get one that's obviously incomplete, or one that refers to the addenda page (even if it has canned statements) and there are none, then I request the balance of the report or tell them I can't perform a review on an incomplete report. I've also offered the same approach as you.

I do reviews on materially incomplete appraisals all the time- they are materially incomplete in reasoning, logic, documentation and explanation, as well as in reliability, credibility and compliance with standards. So what's the big deal, ELf?

If the client hands me a portion of a report, I assume that is the portion that they have questions about. If you hand me a grid page, whether or not I have any thing else, I should be able to review the comparables used, the sale dates, the condition statements, the amenities adjustments, and tell you, after research, whether or not those were, in fact, acceptable comparables and adjustments. I limit my comments as to what I can see on the report and what my databases reflect. I disclaim a lot of things and make lots of assumptions.

I look at it like customer service. What is it the client needs? When I replace a blown tire, if the salesman insists they won't sell me a new one unless I buy a new valve stem, even if the old one is only a few weeks old, then I go elsewhere......I'm the customer. I know what I want. When I get a partial report with a review request, I try to determine what they are wanting before I upgrade my request for information.

If they want a full review, they need to provide me with the full report. If they don't I review what I get.

Boy, GP is on the opposite side of everything this AM. Did the dog pee on his leg? It is pretty clear in the OP of this thread that the appraisal relied on explanations that were either missing or never existed. I'd say the reviewer was sharp and doing his job thoroughly to inquire whether there is more since it may be that additional info is needed for a complete review. I suppose if the client wants a half assed review the client can give the reviewer ony what the client wants reviewed. I do think as a reviewer you have responsibilities that go beyond what the client wants. For one, you need the whole story to know what you are doing before you make a conclusion, otherwise you have to use an HC or EA in your review.

Hey, this brings up a question since we are so into characterising what appraisers are doing. What if somebody asks you to review an appraisal and that somebody was not an intended user or proper authority and you have no idea how that somebody came into possession of the report or what their interests in it are?

As I said elsewhere, I bet even you USPAP thumpers would be surprised by what you do and don't receive in review assignments. I include a table of contents cover page with all my reports, but never see that page when I see my report later.

Daffy wrote:As I said elsewhere, I bet even you USPAP thumpers would be surprised by what you do and don't receive in review assignments. I include a table of contents cover page with all my reports, but never see that page when I see my report later.

Dang....Daffy gets to review his own reports...how cool is that?

It's a wonder he hasn't turned himself in.

Haven't you ever looked at a loan officer's file and seen what they tear out of your appraisal? That was the first thing I noticed. Oh, we don't need that first page!

santa wrote:I do reviews on materially incomplete appraisals all the time- they are materially incomplete in reasoning, logic, documentation and explanation, as well as in reliability, credibility and compliance with standards. So what's the big deal, ELf?

I agree with Santa, State what you reviewed and what was not available so as not to be misleading and move on. Why make it so difficult for someone to hire you?

Asking for all of the relevant protions of the report for review is not about making it difficult for your client. It is for the purpose of determining if there is sufficient support for the conclusions of the appraisal and whether the report is credible. If you don't have enough information provided to you to support your conclusions, then no cigar guys. Be advised to report no conclusions and tell why.

Hang in there Scott. What you propose is patently correct. Reviewers have much more important responsibilities than making the client happy.

How that is being missed here is a question being begged.