Dear Washington State Appraisers:
As ACOW nears the end of the 2011 calendar year, I want to make sure that we appraisers do not forget that there is a special session starting up in the next few weeks and that we need to be cognizant of what can happen to WA State appraisers when politics are involved!
ACOW had to fight really hard this year for the continuance of REAC, getting the new AMC Law rules in place, as well as not increasing our license fees in successive years.
Achievements that ACOW accomplished this year have included:
• In January, I had the opportunity to offer comments at a House Committee hearing about the elimination of the Real Estate Appraiser Commission (REAC), this was the third year our commission was slated for elimination by the Governor’s office and the third year that ACOW has lobbied against the legislation. We quickly got the REAC removed from the bill, but along the way, it got renamed to the Real Estate Appraiser Advisory Committee (REAAC); something that ACOW fought for 16 years ago in changing the original advisory committee to a commission we have today. Along with this name change, the appointment process would be moving to the Director of Licensing rather than from the Governor. ACOW kept at it and with our lobbyist’s efforts, finally got a sponsor to keep the commission as is, but with the Director’s appointment, in the Special Session. I am happy to report that the Commission has been kept as is, with only the appointments coming from DOL. A new appointee recently has been accepted and will begin a term beginning in December 2011 meaning that there will now be six commissioners with the seventh appointment hopefully coming in December 2012.
• Additionally, in the midst of this year’s budget process, a 484-page document this session, our lobbyist recognized one line that was left over from the prior budget: the ability to raise appraiser license fees! From prior discussions with the Appraiser Program Director at DOL, this was something that caught us off guard. Calling the DOL frantically to find out whom asked and why this was to be included in the budget, their response was “we didn’t ask for any increase!” A day later, I received a callback indicating that this was merely a mistake, left over from the prior budget language in 2009 and that the budget writer was new(er) and it was only an oversight—though a potentially costly one to appraisers, especially given that are license fees increased 30% last year. Hearing that, ACOW took a two-pronged approach: One was to talk to the policy-makers and explain the problem; the other, have our members call our respective legislators and ask them to remove this from the bill. After a week of calls and conversations from and with several appraisers across the state, I am also happy to report that this language was recognized as a mistake and it too, was removed from the bill!
• Another item that has been in recent news is the rule making process for implementing our state’s new AMC law. As you may recall, in March 2010, Washington State became the ninth or tenth state in the country to pass an AMC law; this was several months prior to the Dodd-Frank Act and shows how successful our organization has been for appraisers. In late 2010, the REAC created a rule-making work group to help DOL write the rules for the AMC law; three ACOW board members were on the work group and the draft has been sent to DOL to work through the language. We only found out yesterday afternoon that the AMC Law rule making hearing is today, November 8th, in Olympia. Rest assured that ACOW will be down there at 10:00 am to make sure appraisers’ voices are represented.
ACOW still has an outstanding balance of $4,375 owed to TK Bentler, our lobbyist, due to the limited number of Washington state appraiser ACOW members. I am hopeful that we can raise enough over the next two weeks to retire our 2011 lobbying debts and assure that we can retain the services of our lobbyist in 2012…this is where you come in!
The Olympic Peninsula Chapter of NAIFA, with approximately 20 members, recently sent out a challenge: they mailed ACOW a $2,000 check to help with our lobbying expense; on a per capita basis, this amounted to roughly $100 per chapter member. They are hoping that other chapters or individuals will rise up and contribute an additional $100 for the 2011 campaign!
What ACOW is asking is that appraisers will make a $100 contribution with $55 going towards retiring the 2011 debt and the other $45 going towards your 2012 membership.
At "The Summit" in August, TK mentioned that the AMC’s now have a full-time lobbyist in Olympia looking out for their interests. With January 2012 shortly upon us and the beginning of Washington’s AMC registrations taking effect, we will want to pay special attention to what transpires. With situations like the recent Appraisal Loft debacle, we want to make sure the bond requirement that the AMC Law calls for remains intact and possibly look to strengthen the language to make sure that if any AMC that is licensed in Washington State does something similar to what Appraisal Loft did, that appraisers will have some recourse in collecting on their unpaid debts (For those that are not aware of what happened, Appraisal Loft recently shut its doors with a reported $3 million in outstanding appraisal fees due to appraisers that they have already collected from their clients).
Looking into 2012, ACOW is taking a different approach than what we have done in recent years. ACOW will become a more "all volunteer organization" and limit our administrative costs paid out to Seattle Operating Support. We already have had several board members and other appraisers indicate that they will commit to more of the administrative work to cut costs and we will be looking for more volunteers in the weeks and months to come.
So please, consider contributing now to ACOW to help retire our 2011 debt and continue your membership in our state's coalition for 2012. With your help ACOW will continue to have a strong voice in Olympia for all Washington State Appraisers!
To contribute to ACOW, use the payment link at www.acow-wa.org or mail a check to:
ACOW
6351 Seaview Ave. NW,
Seattle, WA 98107
Best Personal Regards,
Justin Slack, SRA
2011 President, ACOW Board of Directors
P.S. Annual ACOW elections are coming up so if you have an interest in serving on the board or want to volunteer in any capacity, please be sure to contact us.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Corelogic Sells AMC Business
Excerpt:
"During the third quarter, CoreLogic sold five business units and reported them as discontinued, including its appraisal management business, several consumer credit units and its marketing services."
Source
Press release from CoreLogic
"During the third quarter, CoreLogic sold five business units and reported them as discontinued, including its appraisal management business, several consumer credit units and its marketing services."
Source
Press release from CoreLogic
Friday, November 4, 2011
Seller Concession in Listings
Excerpted from an email by Dave Towne:
"Appraisers have [a] legal obligation to report any known Comparable Property seller sales concessions on the Fannie/Freddie forms.
However, the attorney for the Washington Association of Realtors has advised Realtor members that they have ‘no obligation to disclose’ concession information if an appraiser calls an Agent for that information. They are treating that as confidential information between seller and buyer as a way to protect the ‘selling price’ of the property. The attorney has also stated that individual Brokerages can establish their own disclosure policy if they so choose.
If an appraiser suspects that there might be a sales concession (to a comparable property), makes a call to the Agent, but the Agent refuses to disclose, the appraiser can include a statement in the report about this, to include the Agent name, Brokerage name, and phone number. This can even be done when the sale info is verified with the listing or sales Agent, even though it appears that no concession was used.
This is the only way I know of for how to protect ourselves. If Agents refuse to cooperate, we have the right to disclose who we talked with to try to obtain information to meet our legal obligation."
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Board of Directors Meeting – Preliminary Agenda
Thursday, November 3, 2011, 6:00 p.m. – Please Plan to Begin Promptly
Lamb Hanson Lamb Office – Seattle
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530
Seattle, WA 98106 (206.903.1500)
For the Lamb Hanson Lamb Office, the building elevators close at 5:30pm; for the Lamb Hanson Lamb offices at 5:30pm.
If attending and plan to arrive after this time, please call ahead of time to arrange for access
(For directions, go to: http://acow-wa.org/MtgDates.html)
To attend the meeting via phone conference: -dial 1.218.339.4300 -when prompted dial access code: 872158#
Board of Directors Meeting – Preliminary Agenda
More on ACOW here.
Lamb Hanson Lamb Office – Seattle
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530
Seattle, WA 98106 (206.903.1500)
For the Lamb Hanson Lamb Office, the building elevators close at 5:30pm; for the Lamb Hanson Lamb offices at 5:30pm.
If attending and plan to arrive after this time, please call ahead of time to arrange for access
(For directions, go to: http://acow-wa.org/MtgDates.html)
To attend the meeting via phone conference: -dial 1.218.339.4300 -when prompted dial access code: 872158#
Board of Directors Meeting – Preliminary Agenda
Call to Order
1. Establish Quorum: Justin Slack, President
2. Approval of Agenda: Justin Slack, President
3. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes: Justin Slack, President
Officer Reports
1. President’s Report: Justin Slack, President
2. Treasurer’s Report: Joe Creech, Treasurer
a. Monthly and Current YTD Status
Committee Reports
Old Business:
1. Administrative Topics:
a. TK’s remaining 2011 fee
b. ACOW beyond 2011
i. George Nervick Research
ii. TK discussions
New Business:
1. 2012 ACOW Elections planning/ discussions (Board Members/ President)
Announcements:
1. Next ACOW Meeting Date:
Adjournment: Justin Slack, President
Board of Directors
Justin Slack, President
Mark Noble, Vice President
Joe Creech, Treasurer
Michael Imes, Secretary
Jodi Standaert, Director
Barry Wilson, Director
George Nervik, Director
ACOW Administration
Appraisers Coalition of Washington
6351 Seaview Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98107-2664
p: 206.622.8425
f: 206.623.4474
More on ACOW here.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Appraisal Independence Requirements
From Dave Towne:
It must be said very simply: the appraiser is the one who controls report content. But it’s also incumbent on appraisers to include relevant details and plenty of commentary to justify their opinions, and of course, the final opinion of value. I think this is where some appraisers hang themselves. But others do it well, and still get asked to make changes. That is not necessarily appropriate.
Despite negative comments about the Dodd-Frank law and some movement to repeal it, it has a section devoted to Appraisal Independence Requirements. ...I recommend that you read it, print it and keep it next to your computer, and also save it to your computer so that you can send it to entities who use inappropriate tactics against you.
Note that the wording of the AIR has this:
No one connected to the property in any way “shall influence or attempt to influence the development, reporting, result, or review of an appraisal through coercion, extortion, collusion, compensation, inducement, intimidation, bribery, or in any other manner…”
Per the law, clients, etc., are allowed to request that the appraiser provide ‘additional comments’ about the information within a report, and to provide more explanation. They can also send you additional properties to consider, ...but many overlook the specific wording that states those ‘comps’ must be “APPROPRIATELY COMPARABLE.”
The mere fact that those properties magically have sale prices close to the desired appraisal value is no coincidence, but that fact alone does not make them ‘appropriately comparable.’
Your defense & preservation is knowledge of the law, writing good reports with enough CYA and other relevant comments, and crafting responses that define and demand your independence in the mortgage lending process when inappropriate requests are made.
Dave Towne
It must be said very simply: the appraiser is the one who controls report content. But it’s also incumbent on appraisers to include relevant details and plenty of commentary to justify their opinions, and of course, the final opinion of value. I think this is where some appraisers hang themselves. But others do it well, and still get asked to make changes. That is not necessarily appropriate.
Despite negative comments about the Dodd-Frank law and some movement to repeal it, it has a section devoted to Appraisal Independence Requirements. ...I recommend that you read it, print it and keep it next to your computer, and also save it to your computer so that you can send it to entities who use inappropriate tactics against you.
Note that the wording of the AIR has this:
No one connected to the property in any way “shall influence or attempt to influence the development, reporting, result, or review of an appraisal through coercion, extortion, collusion, compensation, inducement, intimidation, bribery, or in any other manner…”
Per the law, clients, etc., are allowed to request that the appraiser provide ‘additional comments’ about the information within a report, and to provide more explanation. They can also send you additional properties to consider, ...but many overlook the specific wording that states those ‘comps’ must be “APPROPRIATELY COMPARABLE.”
The mere fact that those properties magically have sale prices close to the desired appraisal value is no coincidence, but that fact alone does not make them ‘appropriately comparable.’
Your defense & preservation is knowledge of the law, writing good reports with enough CYA and other relevant comments, and crafting responses that define and demand your independence in the mortgage lending process when inappropriate requests are made.
Dave Towne
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Appraising Green Homes -- CE
From Chris Mayou:
We had a great response to our first Appraising Green Homes training in Kitsap County. Due to the high turnout at the first class, the agencies involved in funding this course think it's possible to train close to 100% of the appraisers who work in Kitsap County! So, another training date has been added.
This course is designed to build participants' knowledge of green building and will provide an introduction to all phases of green residential construction, from proper siting of a home to finish material selection. Participants will analyze valuation studies and cost data for green residential projects and will engage in appraising green homes through case studies.
Questions? Contact Chris Mayou at cmayou@earthadvantage.org or 503.968.7160 x18
Date & Time: November 15 & 16, 2011 - 8:30a.m.- 4:30p.m.
Location: Silverdale Community Center- Evergreen Room 1
9729 Silverdale Way NW 1 Silverdale, WA 98311
Cost: $50 (Regular admission $349)
CEUs: 14 clock hours;
Washington approved provider: Watkins and Associates
Register NOW!
We had a great response to our first Appraising Green Homes training in Kitsap County. Due to the high turnout at the first class, the agencies involved in funding this course think it's possible to train close to 100% of the appraisers who work in Kitsap County! So, another training date has been added.
This course is designed to build participants' knowledge of green building and will provide an introduction to all phases of green residential construction, from proper siting of a home to finish material selection. Participants will analyze valuation studies and cost data for green residential projects and will engage in appraising green homes through case studies.
Questions? Contact Chris Mayou at cmayou@earthadvantage.org or 503.968.7160 x18
Date & Time: November 15 & 16, 2011 - 8:30a.m.- 4:30p.m.
Location: Silverdale Community Center- Evergreen Room 1
9729 Silverdale Way NW 1 Silverdale, WA 98311
Cost: $50 (Regular admission $349)
CEUs: 14 clock hours;
Washington approved provider: Watkins and Associates
Register NOW!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
CA Appraiser Guilty in Mortgage Fraud Scam
Excerpt:
"Lila Rizk was a licensed real estate appraiser based in Orange County, California. She did business with Mark Abrams, a mortgage broker, and his business partner Charles Elliott Fitzgerald, a real estate developer. Between July 2000 and January 2003, Abrams, Fitzgerald, and others associated with them initiated and carried out a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders.
Losses to these lenders in total exceeded $40 million."
The court opinion is here.
"Lila Rizk was a licensed real estate appraiser based in Orange County, California. She did business with Mark Abrams, a mortgage broker, and his business partner Charles Elliott Fitzgerald, a real estate developer. Between July 2000 and January 2003, Abrams, Fitzgerald, and others associated with them initiated and carried out a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders.
Losses to these lenders in total exceeded $40 million."
The court opinion is here.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
New IRS Voluntary Compliance Initiative
New IRS Voluntary Compliance Initiative for Misclassified Independent Contractors
Excerpt:
On September 21, 2011, the IRS introduced an extremely favorable settlement program for those who have misclassified employees as independent contractors to reclassify them and eliminate the tax exposure.
This favorable program includes audit protection for prior years and abatement of interest and penalties.
Ann O'Rourke(Appraisal Today): Misclassifying appraisers as independent contractors, not employees, can be very, very expensive.
Source
Excerpt:
On September 21, 2011, the IRS introduced an extremely favorable settlement program for those who have misclassified employees as independent contractors to reclassify them and eliminate the tax exposure.
This favorable program includes audit protection for prior years and abatement of interest and penalties.
Ann O'Rourke(Appraisal Today): Misclassifying appraisers as independent contractors, not employees, can be very, very expensive.
Source
Friday, October 14, 2011
iAppraisal Advantage attempts to legitimize BPOs
From Dave Towne, the following emails:
Subject: iAppraisal Advantage-- We have work in WASHINGTON, ARE YOU SIGNED UP FOR THIS PRODUCT?
From: Stephanie Eckes
Sent: Wed, Oct 12, 2011 6:31 pm
Hello,
We have a client who is ready to start placing orders for the new iAppraisal Advantage report in your area. Please let me know if you are interested in completing this product and what your fee will be.
Most of the vendors completing this product for us today are charging in the $20.00-$35.00 range. They have said that the first report takes approximately 45 minutes to complete but once you are familiar with the form and the process that each order takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:11 AM
To: Stephanie Eckes
Let me see if I understand this correctly. This "new product" is a BPO sent to me an appraiser. I'm to review the BPO's opinion and data. Pull my own research, review my research against the BPO, then render an estimated market value as an Appraiser on the subject based on a desk review of a BPO and my verification of the BPO is that about right?
James.
Sent: Thu, Oct 13, 2011 7:17 am
From: Stephanie Eckes
You got it.
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011
To: Stephanie Eckes
Good Morning Stephanie!!
Thought so. This will give total credibility to a broker's opinion of value. It will in the end legitimize Brokers to bankers/lenders of what their estimation of what market value is by establishing a track record and in the end, I cut my own throat. I hope every appraiser turns you down.
I shall not be part of it.
James.
Subject: iAppraisal Advantage-- We have work in WASHINGTON, ARE YOU SIGNED UP FOR THIS PRODUCT?
From: Stephanie Eckes
Hello,
We have a client who is ready to start placing orders for the new iAppraisal Advantage report in your area. Please let me know if you are interested in completing this product and what your fee will be.
Most of the vendors completing this product for us today are charging in the $20.00-$35.00 range. They have said that the first report takes approximately 45 minutes to complete but once you are familiar with the form and the process that each order takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:11 AM
To: Stephanie Eckes
Let me see if I understand this correctly. This "new product" is a BPO sent to me an appraiser. I'm to review the BPO's opinion and data. Pull my own research, review my research against the BPO, then render an estimated market value as an Appraiser on the subject based on a desk review of a BPO and my verification of the BPO is that about right?
James.
Sent: Thu, Oct 13, 2011 7:17 am
From: Stephanie Eckes
You got it.
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011
To: Stephanie Eckes
Good Morning Stephanie!!
Thought so. This will give total credibility to a broker's opinion of value. It will in the end legitimize Brokers to bankers/lenders of what their estimation of what market value is by establishing a track record and in the end, I cut my own throat. I hope every appraiser turns you down.
I shall not be part of it.
James.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Understanding State Board Enforcement
By Timothy C Andersen, MAI
Excerpt:
"It is interesting to note that to violate a state's appraiser certification law is not a crime, per se. It is not illegal, either, which means it is not "breaking the law." It is unlawful, however, which means to do something in a manner the law does not authorize. Since violation of a state's appraiser certification law is not a crime, the protection of our Federal Constitution- "innocent until proven guilty," does not apply.
When the state sends a letter it informs you that you are guilty of a violation of USPAP and/or state law. There are no hearings, no trial, no judge, no jury. You are guilty. You can defend yourself and the state may even drop some of the charges. However, you are guilty of something for no other reason than the state says you are."
Source
Excerpt:
"It is interesting to note that to violate a state's appraiser certification law is not a crime, per se. It is not illegal, either, which means it is not "breaking the law." It is unlawful, however, which means to do something in a manner the law does not authorize. Since violation of a state's appraiser certification law is not a crime, the protection of our Federal Constitution- "innocent until proven guilty," does not apply.
When the state sends a letter it informs you that you are guilty of a violation of USPAP and/or state law. There are no hearings, no trial, no judge, no jury. You are guilty. You can defend yourself and the state may even drop some of the charges. However, you are guilty of something for no other reason than the state says you are."
Source
Monday, October 3, 2011
Appraiser Goes to Jail
Excerpt:
"John F. Hochrek, Jr., 50, Spring Grove, Illinois, was sentenced by United States District Judge Lynn S. Adelman to 6 months in prison for his role in a mortgage fraud scheme involving at least 44 residential properties and millions of dollars of loss."
"Hochrek participated in the scheme as a licensed appraiser (doing business as Tri-County Appraisals in Wisconsin and Illinois) and as a real estate agent. Hochrek provided inflated appraisals for approximately 37 properties and negotiated sales contracts for approximately 15 of the properties, knowing that their values would be falsely inflated."
Source
[Ed.: Hmm. 37 appraisals at, let's say, $350 each... He traded his livelihood for a felony conviction and $12,950. I'll bet he was telling everyone, "Hey! [I] need money to feed [my] kids and [I'm] over a barrel!" Or something like that.]
"John F. Hochrek, Jr., 50, Spring Grove, Illinois, was sentenced by United States District Judge Lynn S. Adelman to 6 months in prison for his role in a mortgage fraud scheme involving at least 44 residential properties and millions of dollars of loss."
"Hochrek participated in the scheme as a licensed appraiser (doing business as Tri-County Appraisals in Wisconsin and Illinois) and as a real estate agent. Hochrek provided inflated appraisals for approximately 37 properties and negotiated sales contracts for approximately 15 of the properties, knowing that their values would be falsely inflated."
Source
[Ed.: Hmm. 37 appraisals at, let's say, $350 each... He traded his livelihood for a felony conviction and $12,950. I'll bet he was telling everyone, "Hey! [I] need money to feed [my] kids and [I'm] over a barrel!" Or something like that.]
Sunday, October 2, 2011
MERS Wins One
Electronic mortgage-registry firm wins in appeal
A three-judge panel rules the plaintiffs did not show that the alleged illegalities associated with the MERS system injured them or violated state law.
By Karen Gullo - Bloomberg News
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), the operator of an electronic registry of mortgages, and lenders won a U.S. appeals-court ruling upholding dismissal of claims by Arizona borrowers challenging their lending and foreclosure procedures.
The federal court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that a district court properly threw out a lawsuit filed by three borrowers alleging conspiracy and fraud.
In addition to MERS, defendants included Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.
"The plaintiffs' claims that focus on the operation of the MERS system ultimately fail because the plaintiffs have not shown that the alleged illegalities associated with the MERS system injured them or violated state law," the three-judge appeals panel said.
MERS, a unit of Reston, Va.-based Merscorp, bills itself as a provider of "support services to the mortgage industry," specifically tracking the servicing rights and ownership interests in mortgage loans.
The company lets banks electronically register their sales of home loans so they can avoid trudging down to the county records office.[Ed: Seriously? NOBODY trudges down to the Courthouse any more. Haven't these people heard of the "Internets?"]
The Arizona borrowers, who are Hispanic and didn't speak or read English, had executed deeds naming MERS as the "beneficiary" and "nominee" for the lender.
After the borrowers defaulted on the loans, MERS recorded documents assigning its interest in the deeds to a bank appointed by the lender as trustee to foreclose on the properties, which were sold at auction, the ruling says.
The borrowers sued, alleging that MERS members conspired to commit fraud by using the registry as a sham beneficiary, promoting predatory lending practices and making it impossible for borrowers or regulators to track when their loans changed hands.
The Arizona district court dismissed the case without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the suit to add wrongful foreclosure claims related to MERS' procedures.
"This is a very good opinion for MERS," said Janis Smith, a company spokeswoman.
"The court found that borrowers were in no way injured by any action taken by MERS," Smith said.
Robert Hager, a Reno, Nev.-based lawyer for the borrowers, said that while "these particular plaintiffs were denied relief because of the particular facts and because they're in Arizona, there's a great deal of good analysis and law about MERS and the recording system in general that will help" other plaintiffs in the San Francisco-based appeals court.
Dozens of lawsuits claiming MERS itself is a fraud have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in federal court in Phoenix.
Source
A three-judge panel rules the plaintiffs did not show that the alleged illegalities associated with the MERS system injured them or violated state law.
By Karen Gullo - Bloomberg News
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), the operator of an electronic registry of mortgages, and lenders won a U.S. appeals-court ruling upholding dismissal of claims by Arizona borrowers challenging their lending and foreclosure procedures.
The federal court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that a district court properly threw out a lawsuit filed by three borrowers alleging conspiracy and fraud.
In addition to MERS, defendants included Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.
"The plaintiffs' claims that focus on the operation of the MERS system ultimately fail because the plaintiffs have not shown that the alleged illegalities associated with the MERS system injured them or violated state law," the three-judge appeals panel said.
MERS, a unit of Reston, Va.-based Merscorp, bills itself as a provider of "support services to the mortgage industry," specifically tracking the servicing rights and ownership interests in mortgage loans.
The company lets banks electronically register their sales of home loans so they can avoid trudging down to the county records office.[Ed: Seriously? NOBODY trudges down to the Courthouse any more. Haven't these people heard of the "Internets?"]
The Arizona borrowers, who are Hispanic and didn't speak or read English, had executed deeds naming MERS as the "beneficiary" and "nominee" for the lender.
After the borrowers defaulted on the loans, MERS recorded documents assigning its interest in the deeds to a bank appointed by the lender as trustee to foreclose on the properties, which were sold at auction, the ruling says.
The borrowers sued, alleging that MERS members conspired to commit fraud by using the registry as a sham beneficiary, promoting predatory lending practices and making it impossible for borrowers or regulators to track when their loans changed hands.
The Arizona district court dismissed the case without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the suit to add wrongful foreclosure claims related to MERS' procedures.
"This is a very good opinion for MERS," said Janis Smith, a company spokeswoman.
"The court found that borrowers were in no way injured by any action taken by MERS," Smith said.
Robert Hager, a Reno, Nev.-based lawyer for the borrowers, said that while "these particular plaintiffs were denied relief because of the particular facts and because they're in Arizona, there's a great deal of good analysis and law about MERS and the recording system in general that will help" other plaintiffs in the San Francisco-based appeals court.
Dozens of lawsuits claiming MERS itself is a fraud have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in federal court in Phoenix.
Source
LiveValuation Publisher Resigns
From Ann O'Rourke, MAI, SRA (Appraisal Today):
San Diego, California- the Publisher of LiveValuation Magazine resigned on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 after last-minute negotiations to purchase the magazine failed. Ernest W. Durbin II was the publisher of the national monthly valuation magazine since its inception in May of 2009. The sole owner of the publication is Aman S. Makkar who recently closed his Appraisal Management Company AppraiserLoft. The magazine was a separate entity.
LiveValuation Magazine launched in May of 2009 featuring articles written by leaders in the residential real estate valuation industry. The magazine has been well received and is known for its creative design and thought-provoking content. Durbin attempted to purchase the assets of the magazine and continue publishing it with its current staff, when terms could not be negotiated; he resigned as publisher earlier this week.
Durbin states, "I have really enjoyed the publication space. Many of the authors and advertisers are my friends or have become my friends. I can't speak to the longevity of LiveValuation Magazine but as publisher I was surrounded by real thought leaders in valuation. I trust that the authors I worked with will find other avenues for their valuable insights."
San Diego, California- the Publisher of LiveValuation Magazine resigned on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 after last-minute negotiations to purchase the magazine failed. Ernest W. Durbin II was the publisher of the national monthly valuation magazine since its inception in May of 2009. The sole owner of the publication is Aman S. Makkar who recently closed his Appraisal Management Company AppraiserLoft. The magazine was a separate entity.
LiveValuation Magazine launched in May of 2009 featuring articles written by leaders in the residential real estate valuation industry. The magazine has been well received and is known for its creative design and thought-provoking content. Durbin attempted to purchase the assets of the magazine and continue publishing it with its current staff, when terms could not be negotiated; he resigned as publisher earlier this week.
Durbin states, "I have really enjoyed the publication space. Many of the authors and advertisers are my friends or have become my friends. I can't speak to the longevity of LiveValuation Magazine but as publisher I was surrounded by real thought leaders in valuation. I trust that the authors I worked with will find other avenues for their valuable insights."
Saturday, October 1, 2011
CNBC Video on "Too Big to Fail"
Another video for those of you who have not seen it, or would like to direct it to others.
"Has the too big to fail, bailout nation policies left us doomed to repeat the same old mistakes? Insight with Josh Rosner, Graham Fisher & Co. and Gretchen Morgenson, The New York Times."
Click here to view
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
