October 2019

Did you know that issues with highest and best use cause a lot of state charges against appraisers? In this blog, Tim Andersen, the Appraiser’s Advocate takes on the concept of financial feasibility as part of USPAP.

What do dinosaurs, a wizard, Mickey Mouse, Whist, and some old broom have to do with real estate appraisal? Tim Andersen, the Appraiser’s Advocate ties them all together for you.

Some say bifurcated appraisals are the future of real estate appraisal. They’re right. Others say that the traditional appraisal model works just fine and thus not need to be changed. They’re right. This musing discusses why they’re both right.

If this statement is the width, breadth, and depth of your defense against a state board’s charges, you probably should just sign the consent agreement now. In other words, that statement should not be the width, breadth, and depth of your defense, defense strategy, or defense tactics when your state board charges you with a USPAP violation(s). So, what to do? Read on…

Question: “A reviewer just called me. She indicated that USPAP required me to provide verification of the sales data from two different sources. I asked the reviewer to show me where this requirement was in USPAP. The reviewer did not answer my question (or apparently, appreciate my attitude in asking it), but indicated that unless I complied with her “request” in a hurry she would send a report off to the state for review and possible discipline. As you might imagine, that got my attention. Where in USPAP does it say I have to confirm my sales data with two different sources? I don’t want to make this mistake again. Help! Is that reviewer crazy?”