Colorado Division of Real Estate
1560 Broadway #925
Denver, CO 80202
Attn:Â Erin Toll
Complaint
This is a complaint against Adam Conner (AL40031008), Kimberly K White (ER40011461) and Craig D Patterson, mortgage broker.
I have not contacted Adam Conner, Kimberly White or Craig Patterson. This matter is not under litigation.
Factual Details of the Complaint
My investigation leads me to believe that:
Adam Conner prepared appraisals for substantially all 13 properties purchased by Shawn Tieskotter (see attached summary) and 9 properties purchased by Dennis Sharkey (see attached summary). In substantially each case, the selling real estate agent was Kimberly White and the mortgage broker was Craig D Patterson. All 22 of these transactions (including the appraisals) follow the same pattern and include the same type of violations.
In this specific instance:
Who: The Dream Team
Buyer:Â Shawn Tieskotter
Appraiser:Â Adam Conner
Selling Real Estate Agent (per listing agent):Â Kimberly White
Mortgage Broker:Â Craig D Patterson
Concessionaire:Â Dream Design
Part Time / One Time Team Members:
Listing Real Estate Agent:Â Kelly Murphy
Seller:Â Randolph Scott Reiser
Mortgage Wholesale:Â Stonecreek Funding
Person(s) with actual risk of loss (a/k/a Sucker): Unknown – each of the named participants has a vested interest in keeping the identity of this person(s) a secret.
What:
The above named “Dream Team†skillfully lied (intentionally deceived) in order to obtain $340,000. They produced a mortgage loan in the amount of $340,000, and on April 28th, 2005, the $340,000 was divvied up amongst the team. The loan is secured by a $310,000 (or less) property (collateral) and the promise of Shawn Tieskotter to repay the loan (i.e., the Tieskotter FICO score).
The appraisal report is an intentional deception produced by Adam Conner for the purpose of putting money into his own pocket (i.e., fraud).
With the benefit of hindsight (as of January 29th, 2007), we know substantially all of the Sharkey properties went into foreclosure. We also know this property (16603 Santolina) has started the foreclosure process (Foreclosure # 2006-1210), along with all of the Tieskotter properties in Arapahoe County. It’s likely that all (or substantially all) of the Tieskotter properties are in foreclosure.
Where:
Subject property address: 16603 Santolina Ct, Parker, CO
When:
Appraisal effective date: 04/23/05
Appraisal signed: 04/25/05
Closing: 04/28/05
Why:
Each of the Dream Team had their own motivation, but they are all paid on commission – either directly (Buyer, Real Estate Agent(s), Mortgage Broker, and Mortgage Wholesale) or indirectly (Appraiser).
For Adam Conner, the best case scenario is he was “marketing†– an effort to ensure a steady supply of $350 orders by keeping the customer satisfied. He knows that if he appraised this property at $310,000, he would immediately and permanently be kicked off the team.
The worst case scenario:Â Adam Conner is working for a percentage of the cash proceeds of the transaction.
How:
Teamwork. For example, on April 26th, 2005, the listing agent changed the asking price to agree with the appraised value. Each of the team members knew what needed to be done, and they did it. Adam Conner knew the “contract price†was arrived at for the sole purpose of requesting a $340,000 appraisal to support a $340,000 loan.
In 2 words, the appraisal report was prepared competently and unethically. This is a multi page report with photos, boilerplate, a detailed sketch, maps, essay section, and signature. The appraiser did everything necessary to allow the loan to close.
Statement Section:
Adam Conner has/is:
Violated the USPAP ethics rule.
Violated a standard(s) for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal, specifically standards 1 and 2.
Guilty of breech of trust in a business transaction.
Comments:
In the scope of work statement – the report says “All information was, where possible, condemned…..â€. This is a curious choice of words. The scope statement used by Sean K Solomon contains this exact same language.
USPAP Ethics Rule: An appraiser must perform assignments ethically. An appraiser must not engage in criminal conduct. An appraiser must perform assignments with impartiality, objectivity, and independence, without accommodation of personal interests.
An appraiser must not accept an assignment that includes the reporting of predetermined opinions and conclusions.
An appraiser must not communicate assignment results in a misleading or fraudulent manner. [Note: Fraud = Intentional deception to cause a person to give up money. Something said or done to deceive.]
It is unethical for an appraiser to accept compensation for performing an assignment when it is contingent upon:
- the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value);
- a direction in assignment results that favor the cause of the client;
- the amount of a value opinion;
- the attainment of a stipulated result; or
- the occurrence of a subsequent event (i.e., loan approval)
It is readily apparent that Adam Conner violated all of the above cited portions of the USPAP Ethics Rule. Adam Conner is a competent appraiser. Adam Conner is also an unethical appraiser. He set out to produce a report that allowed the loan to close, and he did so in a manner that was as competent and as unethical as necessary to accomplish that primary objective.
Pursuant to USPAP Std 1-5(a) and 2-2(b)(ix), the appraiser is required to review and analyze the contract and the listing (market exposure) and to “summarize the information analyzed, the appraisal procedures followed, and the reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions and conclusions.â€
Pursuant to USPAP AO-1, the appraiser must take into account the listing [market exposure], the agreed price, and the pending sale of the subject. The appraiser’s failure to analyze these facts may exclude important information….(See AO-1, lines 32-39).
Pursuant to USPAP Std 1-5(a) and 2-2(b)(ix), if a copy of the contract was unobtainable, a statement on the efforts undertaken by the appraiser to obtain a copy of the contract is required. If the contract is irrelevant, a statement acknowledging the existence of the information and citing its lack of relevance is required. It is unclear if the appraiser (Adam Conner) reviewed a copy of the contract. If he did not review a copy of the contract, the required statement is not in the report.
If he did review a copy of the contract, the report violates the USPAP requirement to “summarize the information analyzed and appraisal procedures followedâ€, i.e., clearly state that he did review a copy of the contract.
There is no analysis of the sales contract. The appraisal report does disclose a seller concession of $10,000 on page #1 of the URAR. This is factually incorrect because the correct dollar amount of the seller concession is at least $30,000 (most likely more than $30,000). The asking price is not disclosed in the report.
How could Adam Conner conclude that the market value was $340,000 when it was obvious that you, I, or anyone else could have bought the property for $309,900 (after 296 days on market)? The report does not answer to this question.
USPAP AO-1 requires the appraiser to consider the pending sale of the subject. There is nothing in the report to suggest compliance with AO-1.
The plain meaning of USPAP 2-2(b)(ix) requires the report to provide sufficient detail for the intended user(s) to understand the reasoning and the rationale for how the market value could be higher than the publicly stated asking price.
In the appraisal report, there is no mention of the appraisal procedures followed with regard to analysis of the sales contract, market exposure, the agreed price, and the pending sale of the subject – this is a violation of USPAP Std 1-5(a) and 2-2(b)(ix), and AO-1.
Per my dictionary: Analysis = An examination of the parts to find out their nature, proportion, interrelationship, etc. A detailed examination. A statement of the results of this process.
What is the interrelationship of the asking price to the market value? The report does not examine this issue.
USPAP dictates the report must include a reconciliation of the difference between the asking price and the appraised value, i.e., a stated and plausible reason. There is no reasoning and there is no rationale – this is a violation of USPAP Std 1-5(a) and 2-2(b)(ix).
Certification:
I certify that the statements and information supplied by me in this complaint including the attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Philip G Rice
11268 E Linvale Dr
Aurora, CO 80014
720-282-3376
phil.rice@mkgappraisal.com
cc:
A complete copy of this document available at:
http://www.mkgappraisal.com/images/Appraisals/santolina/complaint2007_01.htm
Attachments:
Appraisal Report (5 pages)
MLS Listing (1 page)
MLS Listing History (1 page)
Deeds Report – Public Records (1 page)
Tieskotter Summary (1 page)
Sharkey Summary (1 page)
– End of Letter –
tags
Adam Conner and Kimberly White
mortgage fraud real+estate Colorado Adam+Conner AL40031008 Kimberly+K+White ER40011461 Kimberly+White Craig+D+Patterson Craig+Patterson Erin+Toll Kelly+Murphy Scott+Reiser+Randolph Sean+K+Solomon
technorati ping / blog phil.rice / Real Estate Yard Signs / fraud / mortgage / real+estate / Adam Conner / AL40031008 / Kimberly K White / ER40011461 / Kimberly White / Craig D Patterson / Erin Toll / Kelly Murphy / Scott+Reiser+Randolph / Sean K Solomon / Colorado /