Readdressing, Reassigning, Reappraising

Assignment results are your opinions and conclusions developed specific to an assignment. Examples include your final value opinion, your highest and best use conclusion, and your indications of value from any of the approaches used.

The Confidentiality Section of the Ethics Rule of USPAP and the Appraisal Institute Code of Professional Ethics provide that an appraiser must not disclose confidential information or assignment results to anyone other than the client and persons specifically authorized by the client; state enforcement agencies and such third parties as may be authorized by due process of law; and duly authorized professional peer review committees.

Assignments results may be presented in a written report or in an oral report. Sometimes, if an appraiser is not careful, assignment results are revealed inadvertently. For example, an appraiser who in casual conversation tells another appraiser, another client or anyone else, “I appraised that property for $1,000,000,” is divulging assignment results.

First, keep in mind that not all portions of the report are confidential.

For example, in an appraisal report, factual data such as sales comparables are not confidential (unless they were made available by the client and are not available from another source). Descriptions of the location (neighborhood description, region description, etc.) are not confidential.

However, since an appraisal report contains assignment results, which are included in the Confidentiality Section of the Ethics Rule of USPAP and the Appraisal Institute Code of Professional Ethics, the authorization process stated above in Q1 applies.

This means that a copy of the report that shows confidential information and assignment results can’t be given to, revealed to, or shared with anyone other than the client and persons specifically authorized by the client; state enforcement agencies; duly authorized professional peer review committees; and such third parties as may be authorized by due process of law.

Yes; however, you cannot disclose any confidential information contained in the report prepared in the previous assignment for a different client without that prior client's permission.

So you must ask yourself: In completing a new assignment involving the same property for a second client, would I need to disclose information that was considered to be confidential by the first client?

If so, you can’t take on the assignment without obtaining prior permission of the first client to release that confidential information. And if the first client will not give permission to use their confidential information, then you can’t accept the new assignment.

In many cases, performing a new assignment for a second client would not require the appraiser to divulge any confidential information.

Revisit USPAP’s definition of confidential information to be sure. Confidential Information is information that is either:

• Identified by the client as confidential when providing it to an appraiser and that is not available from any other source.
• Classified as confidential or private by applicable law or regulation.

A common misconception is that you must be “released” by the first client to accept the assignment with a subsequent client. The only “release” required is about confidential information. The first client does not need to give permission for you to proceed with another assignment for a second client unless confidential information is at stake.

Another common misconception in performing valuation assignments is that if the value opinion in the second assignment is the same as the value opinion in the first assignment, then communicating the value opinion in the second assignment breaches confidentiality with the first client. This is not true.

USPAP’s definition of assignment results is “an appraiser’s opinions or conclusions, not limited to value, that were when performing an appraisal assignment, an appraisal review assignment, or a valuation service other than an appraisal or appraisal review.” By definition, the assignment results are different because there are two different assignments – even if the numbers are the same.

Note the difference between saying to Client B, “I appraised this same property for Client A for $500,000” and “My value conclusion [in the context of this assignment for you, Client B] is $500,000.” The first statement breaches confidentiality by divulging assignment results. The second statement does not.

Another common misconception is that taking a subsequent assignment with another client would be a “conflict of interest.” You can’t have a conflict of interest unless you first have interest. Entering into an appraiser-client relationship to complete an assignment does not mean that you then have an interest with regard to that client or that property. This would be inconsistent with the underlying principle in USPAP that the appraiser’s role is to be independent, impartial, objective, and unbiased.

Keep in mind that since 2010, USPAP has required disclosure of any prior service involving the same property within three years prior to the date of engagement. A few key points about this requirement:

1. The requirement is to disclose any service involving the property that is the subject of the appraisal (or subject of the appraisal under review, in the case of a review assignment), not just appraisals or appraisal reviews, and not just services provided as an appraiser.
2. The relevant time period is three years prior to the date of engagement of the current assignment, not date of value or date of report.
3. The disclosure must be made up front before accepting the assignment and again in the certification in the appraisal or review report.
4. There is no requirement to disclose for whom the prior service was performed; the appraised value, if any; or exactly when during the three-year period the service was performed.

The certification statement required by USPAP in Standards Rule 2-3 supplies the type and degree of disclosure: “I have performed no (or the specified) services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.”

The requirement that was added to USPAP in 2010 clarifies that if the client requests that the appraisal be kept confidential, the appraiser cannot take another assignment involving that property for three years. That’s because the appraiser would not be able to disclose prior services (as required) without violating confidentiality.

Use your discretion in deciding whether or not to reveal information about a prior assignment to a subsequent client beyond what’s required. For example, while the identity of the client is not confidential (unless they state that it is), there are situations in which the fact that the first client had the property appraised is, in itself, sensitive information.

It’s also worth noting that it’s characteristic of professionals in many other fields to keep the identity of prior clients confidential.

One caveat about taking on assignments with residential property owners/borrowers: If you’re contacted by a residential property owner or borrower about providing valuation services for which the intended use is in conjunction with mortgage lending, you must advise the property owner or borrower that the lending institution, or a third party engaged by the lender, needs to engage the appraiser for that type of assignment.

This is a requirement under federal law, and the regulatory agencies have been adamant about it. Further, an appraisal report prepared for a client who is a residential property owner or borrower should clearly state that it is not intended for use by a federally insured depository institution in a federally related transaction.

No.

It’s improper to readdress a report to another client for three significant reasons.

1. Changing the name of the client and then forwarding the “readdressed” report to the second client does not change the first appraiser-client relationship. An appraiser-client relationship, once established, cannot be changed.
   
   Typically, the second party wants to be named as “client” because they want the appraiser-client relationship, and all the rights and obligations thereof, to be between them and the appraiser. The only way to accomplish this is for a new appraiser-client relationship to be established. A written engagement letter with the client is a great way to establish this.
   
   In short, the only way to be named as “client” in the report is to actually be a client. “Client” is defined in USPAP as “the party or parties (i.e. individual, group, or entity) who engage an appraiser by employment or contract in a specific assignment, whether directly or through an agent”.
    
2. Changing the name of the client and then forwarding the “readdressed” report to the second client could harm the confidential nature of the appraiser’s relationship with the first client. While this could be avoided by obtaining the first client’s permission to provide the report to the second client, it could still be misleading.
   
   In an appraisal assignment, if the appraiser simply changes the name of the client, the appraiser is not following the requirements under Standard 1 of USPAP to identify the client, intended user(s) and intended use with regard to this second client in the proper sequence.
   
   According to the definitions of intended use and intended user, both must be identified by the appraiser “at the time of the assignment”, not after the appraisal process is completed and the report is finished.
    
3. The client is the party to whom the appraiser owes the duty of confidentiality. (Note that the appraiser does not owe a duty of confidentiality to other intended users.)
   
   And the key reason for identifying intended users has to do with Standards Rule 2-1(b), which says that the report must contain sufficient information to enable the intended users of the appraisal to understand the report properly. (In the case of a review report, a similar requirement is found in Standards Rule 3-4(b).)
   
   Once intended users and intended use are stated, the appraiser is now obligated to ensure the adequacy of the report for that use by those intended users. The identification of intended users (and intended use) must be completed up front before scope of work determination and before the report is issued.
   
   To add intended users after the fact, or to change the intended use, is putting the cart before the horse. It simply doesn’t work.

A request to readdress a report should be treated as a request to accept a new assignment involving the same property, as in Q3 above. Once the confidentiality issue is resolved, the next questions to be answered are:

• Who are the intended users?
• What is the intended use?
• What date of value is needed, according to what value definition?
• What assignment conditions (extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions, supplemental standards) apply?
• What is the appropriate scope of work for this new assignment?
• What level of reporting is needed?

There may be little additional work in performing a new assignment for another client. You may be providing virtually the same data and analysis, and even the same value conclusion (though you won’t discover this until you have completed your analysis). However, you must consider all the assignment parameters for this new assignment, which could be different from those of the previous assignment.

Further, keep in mind that in providing a report to another client, you are extending your liability to that client. As appraisers, we are not in the business of “selling reports”; we are in the business of “selling” our expertise and our opinions. Every time an addition is made to the list of intended users, our liability grows.

A new client means there is a new assignment which necessitates the preparation of a new report.

One additional point regarding assignments for lenders: Appraisers should be aware that the appraisal requirements of Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) allow a regulated lender to use a report that was prepared for another “financial services institution”.

This means that Lender B can use a report that was prepared for Lender A, even though Lender A shows as client on the report. Lender B does not have to be named as client, according to the FIRREA requirements.

However, usually Lender B will “want their name on the report”. Why? Because Lender B wants the appraiser-client relationship, and all the rights and obligations thereof, to be between them and the appraiser.

This means that as far as the appraiser is concerned, there is to be a new appraiser-client relationship – i.e., a new assignment.

Reassigning may mean different things to different parties. Be sure you know what the requesting party is asking.

In the context of this discussion, reassigning means signing over your rights and obligations regarding the report to another party.

For example, when a report is prepared for and given to Client A, that report is no longer yours to “give”, or assign, to anyone else. An analogy would be if you sold your car to Party A, you couldn’t then sell it to Party B.

Client A could assign their interests in their report to Client B, but the appraiser would not be part of this process (and should not be asked to be).

When the request is to recertify, clarification with the client is imperative.

“Recertify” tends to be an abused term. Often, it is erroneously used to mean “reassign”, or “readdress”, or “update”. Often it is not clear what clients mean when they use the term “recertify”, and appraisers need to help remedy the confusion.

Appraisers certify their reports (i.e., they may include a certification per SR 2-3 in an appraisal report), but this certification has nothing to do with the ownership of, or rights to use, the report.

A “recertification of value” is an entirely different concept. As defined in Advisory Opinion 3 of USPAP, a re-certification of value is an assignment in which the appraiser determines whether the conditions of an appraisal have been met.

This sort of assignment is not an appraisal at all, because it has nothing to do with developing an opinion of value.

No. The letter would add that party as an intended user after the completion of an assignment, and you cannot do that.