Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Suggestion for Appraisers Concerned About the AppraisalPort User Agreement

Appraisers continue to express concern to us about potential indemnity obligations under the AppraisalPort user agreement. Short of seeing the indemnity provision taken out, appraisers have asked if we can suggest any language for use in their reports relating to this issue. We have developed the language below. Appraisers may consider including this language in reports they deliver via AppraisalPort if they are concerned about the technology and potential liability under the user agreement. This approach is far from ideal, but it is designed to decrease the likelihood of claims by lender/clients for which AppraisalPort might claim indemnity from the appraiser. The reason this approach is not ideal is that AppraisalPort/FNC would likely contend it does not constitute a change of the user agreement. The primary intent, however, is to reduce the likelihood of a claim and its possible success.

The lender/client has directed that the appraiser transmit the content of this report via AppraisalPort. Pursuant to its user agreement, FNC/AppraisalPort has disclaimed any warranty that AppraisalPort will be error free, has advised that information reported to and by AppraisalPort may be subject to transmission errors, and has indicated that use of AppraisalPort is at the user's sole risk. Accordingly, the lender/client should make its own determination as to the accuracy and reliability of AppraisalPort for its use. The appraiser makes no representations and specifically disclaims any warranty regarding the accuracy or portrayal of content transmitted via AppraisalPort or its reliability. The appraiser uses such technology at the specific direction and sole risk of the lender/client. At its request, the lender/client may obtain a true copy of the original report directly from the appraiser via email (PDF), mail or other means.

As we have said before, to this date, we have not received a claim against one of our appraisers relating to use of AppraisalPort or received any report of AppraisalPort demanding indemnity from an appraiser. The indemnity provision in the user agreement has existed for several years. Thus, the risk to appraisers appears to be very low. Nevertheless, it is FNC that is in the best position to gauge the risk, and it has included the broad indemnity language in the user agreement.

It is also worth pointing out that the indemnity provision in the user agreement applies to all users of AppraisalPort, not just appraisers -- thus, AppraisalPort/FNC could conceivably demand indemnity from a lender or AMC using the service.

Click Here to Read Full Post

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Form Letter Board Complaints by a National Lender


We've observed a new pattern by one national lender. "Risk Management" at this lender has been submitting numerous complaints to state boards based only on single review appraisals which merely indicate "potential violations" of USPAP. I think the lender wants to show that it's "getting tough" on appraisers. In general, I don't think the tactic of filing numerous board complaints based on "potential violations" of USPAP indicated by a single review is the right way for this or any lender to show good appraisal management practices. For one thing, the practice may backfire on the lender: appraisers subjected to the tactic may claim that it is being used to intimidate appraisers.

I think the better practice for lenders to deal with alleged appraisal performance problems is for a knowledgeable in-house appraiser (either at the lender or its AMC) to obtain and fairly consider the appraiser's view without any threatened action; if there are real issues, then the in-house appraiser should counsel the appraiser and give the appraiser specific usable advice as to how performance should be improved. Only where fraud or genuine incompetence is apparent should the lender file a state complaint. Sending anonymous, vague letters threatening appraisers with blacklisting and then using form letters to file numerous board complaints about "potential violations" are not the answer.

The most troubling aspect of this particular lender's practice, however, is reflected in the lender's statement in the form letter that: "We are unable to provide any additional information for your investigation." That's often false. In several cases of which I am aware, the lender possessed written explanations from the accused appraisers which fairly defended the subject appraisal reports against dubious review appraisals. But the lender withheld this information from the state boards. This is an unfair tactic, especially in those states that don't inform appraisers of the nature of the complaint against them and keep the identity of the complaining party anonymous.

Click Here to Read Full Post

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Riskiest States for Appraisers in 2008

Our company LIA insures 25,000+ appraisers in the U.S. The claims we receive give us a very good indication of the riskiest states for appraisers in terms of legal claims and disciplinary complaints.

Legal Claims. Based on our claims in 2008, the three states with the most legal claims against appraisers (i.e., lawsuits and threatened lawsuits concerning appraisals) are:

1. Florida (most legal claims)
2. Michigan
3. Arizona

The most surprising thing here is that California is not in the top three.

Disciplinary Complaints. The three states with the most disciplinary complaints reported (i.e., complaints investigated by the agency in each state with responsibility for appraiser discipline) are:

1. Michigan (most complaints)
2. North Carolina
3. Oregon

Based on what you read in the papers, I would have expected other states to be in the top three. Given their relatively smaller populations, North Carolina and Oregon are surprises to me.

Overall Scariest Place to Appraise Property: Michigan.

Click Here to Read Full Post

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

New AppraisalPort Agreement Effective 12/13/08

FNC has just announced a newly revised AppraisalPort user agreement that will become effective on December 13, 2008. Under its terms, the user agreement applies to you simply by virtue of your use of AppraisalPort. Both the current agreement and revised agreement are available on AppraisalPort’s website.

As occurred when FNC announced its previous revision (which was to go in effect on September 13 but was subsequently withdrawn), we are beginning again to receive numerous calls from our insured appraisers. This post is meant to explain our view of the major issues for those appraisers who are concerned about the user agreement.

As we explained in our initial post about the agreement on September 24, appraisers should understand that an agreement such as this does not change an appraiser’s E&O insurance coverage or "void" the policy. Your E&O policy will still provide the same degree of protection and coverage as if the agreement did not exist and will still provide the same level of defense set forth in the policy for claims alleging professional negligence against you. This is because your contract with a different party (in this case, your agreement with AppraisalPort under its user agreement) does not change the separate contract you have with your insurance company (i.e., your E&O insurance policy). Thus, you would still be defended under your insurance policy against claims by lenders or borrowers alleging professional negligence relating to an appraisal even if you delivered the report through AppraisalPort (assuming that you maintain current insurance and that all other regular terms and conditions of your policy are met and no regular exclusions in the policy apply, etc.). However, as explained below, your insurance policy is not going to expand to cover any new liabilities that might be created by your contract with AppraisalPort (e.g., liabilities to AppraisalPort if AppraisalPort gets sued).

The main issue with AppraisalPort’s current user agreement – the agreement that is in effect until December 13 – is the “indemnity clause” in paragraph 6. The troublesome part of that paragraph reads:
SUBSCRIBER shall indemnify AppraisalPort and its suppliers (whether of Information or otherwise), defend and hold them harmless from and with respect to any liability, damages (including without limitation any consequential, incidental, general, special or exemplary damages), losses, or claims which may arise, whether now or in the future, with regard to

i. the use of AppraisalPort or any aspect or service thereof, or
ii. the accuracy, authenticity, or completeness of the Information, or
iii. any aspect of the operation of SUBSCRIBER's business in relationship with or in connection with AppraisalPort or SUBSCRIBER's use of the Information or software, whether any such liability, damages, loss, or claim arises from any act or omission of AppraisalPort (including its sole ordinary or gross negligence) or act or omission of any supplier of data to AppraisalPort (including their sole ordinary or gross negligence).
Under this language, an appraiser (or anyone subject to the agreement) is purportedly agreeing to pay all of AppraisalPort's losses, damages, expenses, etc. which might result from an appraisal delivered through AppraisalPort -- even if the loss or damage results from AppraisalPort's own conduct or even its own "sole negligence." The problem for the appraiser here is that he or she is agreeing to pay potential costs and damages that are broader than can be covered by the appraiser’s insurance. An appraiser’s E&O policy can only cover mistakes or damage caused by the insured appraiser (not a third party such as AppraisalPort). In addition, your insurance cannot cover potential liabilities that you agree to in a contract.

The revised language on the subject of indemnity is contained in paragraph 8 of the new user agreement. The new provision reads:
USER shall indemnify AppraisalPort and its suppliers (whether suppliers of Information or otherwise), defend and hold them harmless from and with respect to any liability, damages (including without limitation any consequential, incidental, general, special or exemplary damages), losses, or claims which may arise, whether now or in the future, with regard to
i. USER's use of AppraisalPort or any aspect or service thereof, or
ii. the accuracy, authenticity, appropriateness or completeness of the Information, or
iii. any aspect of the operation of USER's business in relationship with or in connection with AppraisalPort or USER's use of the Information or software.
The only material difference between the two versions is that FNC took the following words out of the last item: “whether any such liability, damages, loss, or claim arises from any act or omission of AppraisalPort (including its sole ordinary or gross negligence) or act or omission of any supplier of data to AppraisalPort (including their sole ordinary or gross negligence).” While facially appealing, in our view, this deletion does not really change the meaning of the indemnity provision. In other words, if FNC gets sued for any reason based on an appraisal delivered by you through AppraisalPort, FNC could still argue that you are obligated to indemnify FNC for losses or damages that FNC incurs as the result of that lawsuit even if the lawsuit is based on a problem caused by FNC. This means that, for example, if FNC is sued by a lender for a problem that occurred in your report such as the omission of appraisal data caused by an error inherent in the software, FNC could potentially argue that you must pay FNC’s costs in defending that lawsuit and any damages that FNC may pay to the lender. In this way, the two versions are more or less the same. And again, your insurance cannot cover these additional liabilities that you agree to assume to FNC and its suppliers in the user agreement.

The deletion of the quoted words may have one potential impact to the advantage of the appraiser: based on our limited research, it is possible that under Mississippi law (which purportedly applies under the user agreement), FNC might not be able to obtain indemnification from the appraiser for FNC’s own active negligence. The determination of this legal point, however, would involve contractual interpretation of the parties’ intentions by the judge or arbitrator hearing the dispute and is not something that we can predict the outcome of. The fact that FNC has taken out the specific wording regarding “any act or omission of AppraisalPort (including its sole ordinary or gross negligence)” would be an argument in the appraiser’s favor.

In the end, we feel that nothing substantive has changed in the new agreement with respect to the issue of indemnity and potential liabilities that cannot be covered by insurance. As under the prior agreement, if you are worried that using AppraisalPort is risky, then you should carefully consider whether you are willing to use AppraisalPort under the terms of its user agreement. If you are not willing to accept that risk, you should contact AppraisalPort to try to change the terms and conditions or, alternatively, not use the service to deliver your reports. If you are satisfied that AppraisalPort does not present much risk or that the fears of altered reports are unfounded, then you would likely be more comfortable with the user agreement and comfortable that you are unlikely to experience potential liabilities that cannot be covered by insurance. Because we do not use the service ourselves and have no way of assessing the actual risk to you of using AppraisalPort, it is not our place to make the decision for you. It comes down to a business judgment of whether you are willing to accept the apparent advantages of using AppraisalPort (such as more business) in exchange for the potential risks it may cause.

We can offer the following information based on our claims experience: as of this date, we have not yet received a claim against one of our appraisers that specifically relates to a problem using AppraisalPort nor are we aware of any claim by FNC for indemnity against any of our insureds. At the same time, however, it is FNC that is in the best position to gauge the risks posed by its service, and it is FNC that believes it is necessary to protect itself from lawsuits stemming from use of its service by including the indemnity language in its user agreement.

Aside from the above, there are other matters of concern in the new user agreement. We’ll be brief on these because they do not directly impact insurance concerns and have not materially changed from the prior version. First, under paragraph 12 of the new agreement, if an appraiser has a dispute with FNC relating to AppraisalPort or if FNC decides to sue an appraiser, the dispute is subject to binding arbitration in Lafayette County, Mississippi, where FNC is located. This means that you give up your right to have the case heard in court, before a jury, in a more convenient location or as a class action.

In addition, under paragraph 9, if you believe AppraisalPort has injured you as the result of some action, the types of damage you may recover from FNC are strictly limited under the user agreement. Moreover, the total monetary damages that you may recover from FNC are limited to “the amount actually paid by [you] to AppraisalPort hereunder within the most recent 12 month period.” If individual appraisers could do it, we’d love to see appraisers limit their liability to their clients to the amount that a client pays them for an appraisal.

Click Here to Read Full Post

Monday, November 10, 2008

How Long to Keep Files?

Most claims against appraisers involve appraisals performed within 3 years of the date the claim is made. However, as real estate values continue to decline in certain areas and as foreclosure rates remain high, we are seeing more claims about older appraisals and seeing some claims about appraisals that are more than 5 years old.

When we get a claim about an appraisal that is more than 5 years old, we often find out that the appraiser no longer has his or her work file. Now, this is perfectly understandable given that record-keeping requirements generally only specify that a work file should be kept for 5 years and given that many appraisers lack the space to store older files. However, when we have to defend an old appraisal, it's also true that the appraiser is almost always better off if he or she still has the work file. For example, the file might contain a key piece of information such as a note indicating the source of information or photographs showing the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. Accordingly, given that we are seeing more claims against appraisers and more claims based on older appraisals, we believe it is prudent for appraisers to keep their files for longer than the minimum 5 years. We generally think 7 or 8 years would provide a better margin of safety for the appraiser.

Click Here to Read Full Post

Nationstar Mortgage -- Beware of a New Claim Tactic

We previously commented that Nationstar Mortgage is the lender who currently asserts the most claims against appraisers. In the last week, we have observed a new tactic being employed by Nationstar and feel that appraisers need to be aware of it to protect themselves.

A typical claim by Nationstar against an appraiser begins with Nationstar’s collection personnel contacting the targeted appraiser by telephone or email. Nationstar may then forward the appraiser a letter accusing the appraiser of “gross negligence” in performing an appraisal for one of its defaulted loans. The company threatens the appraiser with legal action or a disciplinary complaint unless the appraiser resolves Nationstar’s claim by paying a substantial sum of money, sometimes more than $100,000.

Nationstar’s apparent new tactic is to send a short agreement to the appraiser entitled “Errors and Omissions Claims Submission Form.” The form contains the following statement: “Based on additional review by Nationstar Mortgage it was determined that the appraisal contained some deficiencies and was completed in a negligent manner which would warrant a legitimate appraisal claim.” Nationstar’s collection personnel demand that the appraiser sign and return the form.

Regardless of his or her insurance coverage, no appraiser being targeted by Nationstar should sign this form or anything similar from Nationstar. (Indeed, no appraiser should sign anything like it for any lender making a claim against them without first consulting with their E&O insurer or an attorney.) Though this form contains a statement that “this is not an admission of guilt,” the form still appears intended by Nationstar to elicit the appraiser’s agreement that his or her appraisal was negligent. No appraiser should agree to this – particularly, when in our experience, almost all appraisals rendered for loans by Nationstar or other lenders making claims are defensible as of their effective date. Moreover, we’ve seen Nationstar pursue a claim against an appraiser based on a forged appraisal. Certainly, an appraiser should not agree that a forged appraisal would “warrant a legitimate appraisal claim” as stated in the form.

The bottom line is that an appraiser should never agree with Nationstar, or any party, that his or her appraisal was deficient or negligent (doing so could even jeopardize insurance coverage for the claim).

Click Here to Read Full Post

How Will the Bailout Affect Claims Against Appraisers?

The number of legal claims against appraisers – both residential and commercial – has increased about 100% in the last two years. This increase results largely from high foreclosure rates relating to loans made in 2005-2007 combined with lender and borrower decisions to blame appraisers for their losses and to seek compensation by filing claims. For the record: we believe that the vast majority of the claims we see against appraisers arising out of the mortgage crisis are without merit – typically, the claims are filed by lenders who ignored responsible lending criteria or by parties who were not clients of the appraiser and the subject appraisal is usually defensible as of the time it was performed. However, even though most claims can be defended, appraisers are still left with the problem of too many claims and lawsuits. Just defending them consumes enormous time and expense and, of course, causes stress and anxiety for appraisers.

The federal bailout will have an important impact on whether claims against appraisers increase or decrease. Our simple hope is that the bailout will decrease foreclosures and defaults and thus spare appraisers from some of the claims that would otherwise have been filed. Our fear, however, is that parts of the bailout could involve organized/institutionalized efforts to recover loan losses from appraisers and other professionals (as occurred under the RTC during the S&L crisis). It is too early to tell what will happen. Our current observations are discussed below.

TARP. The Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) became law October 3, 2008. Prior to enactment, TARP was sold to the public and Congress on the basis that it would be a mechanism for the Treasury to purchase troubled mortgages and mortgage backed securities to rescue financial institutions and bring relief to struggling borrowers. The Treasury Department, however, immediately took TARP in a different direction after enactment by allotting the first $250 billion dollars of the program to purchase equity interests in banks. While these investments may stabilize the chosen lenders, they will do nothing to prevent foreclosures or have the effect of decreasing claims against appraisers.

The Treasury Department states that it is still working on planned programs to actually purchase troubled mortgage debt and that it is still in the process of selecting the asset managers who will oversee the management of the debt it purchases. As this process occurs we, are reading through documents that become available to discern if the organized pursuit of legal claims will be part of the direction given to the asset managers. Our obvious hope is that there will be no such direction in the program and that the emphasis will be on simply taking the debt off the books of lenders and trying to work with borrowers to prevent foreclosures and defaults.

FDIC. We have seen the FDIC take over a number of banks in recent months. The most notable of these seizures were the FDIC’s takeover over of Washington Mutual and its seizure of Indymac. Thus far, we have not seen any overt sign that the FDIC is intent on pursuing organized litigation against appraisers or other third parties relating to loan losses by these lenders. However, the backdrop for such an effort (which, at its worst, would resemble what the RTC tried to do) does exist. For example, in the case of WaMu, when the FDIC sold WaMu’s banking/mortgage assets to JP Morgan, the FDIC retained – as receiver for WaMu – all rights, actions and claims against third parties “whose action or inaction may be related to any loss . . . incurred by the Failed Bank.” This provision appears to be standard in the FDIC’s agreements when it sells loan assets from failed banks and means that the FDIC is retaining the right to pursue claims against professionals like appraisers. At the same time, the FDIC is currently seeking bids from law firms desiring to provide legal services to the FDIC for, among many other things, the purpose of pursuing these types of claims. We will, of course, be monitoring such movements for any sign that the FDIC has begun to pursue coordinated legal actions designed to recover losses from appraisers. We are hopeful that what the FDIC is really trying to carve out and pursue here are claims against bigger players who actually caused harm to banks (such as their former officers and directors, their legal and accounting advisors, and rating agencies).

Click Here to Read Full Post