Complaint / Real Estate Appraiser

Filed against Dennis Howell

Colorado Board of Real Estate Appraisers
1900 Grant St, #600
Denver, CO 80203
Attn: Enforcement

Re: My File Number – Howell 01
Subject Property: 3180 S Halifax St, Aurora, CO 80013
Appraisal Date: 08/10/04

This is a complaint against Dennis R Howell, SRA -- License number AL01313209.

I have not contacted the appraiser. This matter is not under litigation.

Comments:

There is no scope of work statement – this is a violation of USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b)(vii)

The report does not address “reasonable exposure time” – this is a violation of USPAP Standards Rule 1-2(c) comment, SMT-6, AO-7, AO-8, and item (3) in the definition of market value.

Pursuant to USPAP Standards Rule 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.”

Pursuant to USPAP AO-1, the appraiser must take into account the listing, 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 Standards Rule 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 (Dennis Howell) 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 followed”, i.e., clearly state that he did review a copy of the contract.

The report shows the sale price as $155,000 and the seller concession as $5,000. If we accept these figures at face value, it means the seller agreed to accept $150,000 and the buyer agreed to pay $150,000. Therefore, the “agreed price” (USPAP AO-1 terminology) is $150,000. How could Dennis Howell conclude the market value was $160,000 when it was obvious the agreed price was $150,000? There is no answer in the report.

The report states:

“The subject property last sold May of 2002. It is currently a bank owned property. It has been listed for sale since July of 2003 with a beginning price of $168,000. It is currently listed for $155,000 and under contract for $155,000.”

My dictionary defines “Analysis” as an examination of the parts to find out their nature, proportion, interrelationship, etc. A detailed examination. A statement of the results of this process.

How could anyone look at the listing history and see this property on the market for 329 days, and then conclude the market value is $5,000 higher than the publicly stated asking price? How could Dennis Howell conclude that the market value was $160,000 when it was obvious (after 329 days on market) that you, I, or anyone else could have bought the property for $155,000? There is no answer in the report.

USPAP AO-1 requires the appraiser to consider the pending sale of the subject. There is nothing in the report to indicate compliance.

The plain meaning of USPAP 2-2(b)(ix) requires that the report 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. Common sense dictates that there needs to be some stated reason, and the reason must be plausible.

There is no mention of the appraisal procedures followed – this is a violation of USPAP Standards Rule 1-5(a) and 2-2(b)(ix). There is no analysis of the sales contract. There is no analysis of the subject listing or market exposure. There is no reasoning and there is no rationale – this is a violation of USPAP Standards Rule 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.

Signed,

Philip G Rice
11268 E Linvale Dr
Aurora, CO 80014
720-282-3376

Attachments:

Appraisal Report (3 pages)
Subject MLS Listing (1 page)
Subject MLS Listing History (1 page)
Subject Deeds Report (1 page)
Subject County Records (1 page)

Navigate: home / site map / disclaimer

tags: dennis+howell dennis+r+howell+sra sra terry+pixley uspap mortgage+fraud appraiser appraisal