Source: https://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/2009/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:01:02+00:00

Document:
In 2009, the volume of claims against appraisers remained at the same record levels experienced in 2007 and 2008. Beyond this continued high level, we've observed several new claim trends affecting residential appraisers in 2009.
I'll start with the good news. Most of the claims we see are defensible. With experienced and knowledgeable defense counsel, we find that the claims can often be defended without any liability. Second, though the volume of claims is high, the volume does not appear to be increasing to even higher levels. We are slowly winding our way through the problems created by irresponsible lending practices at the peak of the bubble. As we get further away from that time, we are hopeful that we’ll start seeing a decline in the number of new claims.
This good news travelled fast!
Page 13 of the 2010 Proposed Regulation Changes contained an error that has now been corrected. The Lowest Income Table column for 45% of Area Median Income incorrectly indicated 40 points for targeting 65% of the units. This has been corrected to 35 points.
The United States pipeline peaked in Q2 2008 at 5,883 projects/785,547 rooms. Since then, developer sentiment has been dampened by the downturn in the nation's economy, the banking crisis and the declines in operating performance.
Do you really, really believe that a MAI or SRA designation would be the best qualified to appraise a property?
I would suggest you go to the Appraisal Institute website. Therer you can search for appraisers in your area. Generally speaking those with an MAI or SRA designation would be qualified to appraise your property. Just be clear about your requirements and also be aware that court appearences and depositions will cost more money. You can hire your own appraiser for any purpose. Lenders cannot use appraisals performed by an owner selected appraiser.
There are some appraisers that like legal and divorce work. Personally I have an aversion to lawyers.
Do you really, really believe that a MAI or SRA designation would be the best qualified to appraise a property? (I do notice that you qualified your statement and stated..." generally speaking".
Let me relate a story on a MAI appraiser in a divorce case. Respondant's attorney on his first trial case orders an appraisal from an appraisal shop. Owner of appraisal shop has MAI designation! Assignment is a complex property and has new trainee of 1-2 months do the appraisal. MAI appraiser signs off as supervisor but checks box "did not inspect".
Respondant's attorney (client for the MAI appraiser) supoenas trainee for court testimony. MAI appraiser allows her to appear in court rather than himself. Defendant's attorney request trainee be dismissed as witness since she is not an appraiser. Judge grants request and trainee does not get to tesify.
Case is continued to a second day which was scheduled a month later. This time MAI appraiser appears as witness after being supoena by Respondant's attorney. Is cross exam by Defendant's attorney who states , .." I see you checked the box...did not inspect, is this correct. MAI's answer (Yes) Your honor, I request that this individual is not qualified to be a witness, please excuse him as witness."
Judge dismissed him and after his exit, the judge and both attorneys broke out in laugher with the judge making the comment, how can you do an appraisal without inpection! I was personally somewhat embarrassed for the appraisal industry, but the fact that I advised the defendant's attorney to have both the trainee and the MAI appraiser dismissed made my day.
I perform ligation work and do not have any designations. My advice is consult a good attorney and not one that is still wet behind the ears and is barely out of diapers knows the good appraisers to recommend. Having a MAI designation does not necessarily make a good appraiser. David Sawyer.
The order of the court approving the employment of an appraiser or auctioneer shall fix the amount or rate of compensation. No officer or employee of the Judicial Branch of the United States or the United States Department of Justice shall be eligible to act as appraiser or auctioneer. No residence or licensing requirement shall disqualify an appraiser or auctioneer from employment.
Revenue Procedure 2009-52 provides guidance under § 13 of the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, which allows taxpayers to elect a 3, 4, or 5-year net operating loss (NOL) carryback instead of a normally 2-year carryback. The election applies to an applicable NOL, which is an NOL for a taxable year ending after December 31, 2007, and beginning before January 1, 2010. The revenue procedure tells taxpayers the time and manner for making the election if the taxpayer (1) has not claimed a deduction for an applicable NOL; (2) previously claimed a deduction for an applicable NOL; or (3) previously filed an election to forgo the NOL carryback.
Revenue Procedure 2009-52 will be in IRB 2009-49, dated December 7, 2009.
arrangements, classification of loans, and regulatory reporting and accounting considerations.
Examination Council (FFIEC) State Liaison Committee (collectively, the regulators).
as defined in Section 723.1 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations, secured by real estate.
Estate Loans (November 1991) and Review and Classification of Commercial Real Estate Loans (June 1993).
secured by real property or other business assets of a commercial borrower.
change, or a borrower’s financial condition deteriorates.
value, a prospective “as complete” market value, and a prospective “as stabilized” market value.
sell) of the property in its current “as is” condition in its collateral assessment.
assess the degree of protection that the collateral affords in analyzing and classifying a credit.
committed loan amount in their analysis.
assumptions are inappropriate or can support alternative assumptions.
such assets, determining the acceptability of the collateral, and perfecting its security interest.
its collateral interests and security protection.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
Title 12 -- Banks and Banking Section 34.43 -- Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser.
Title 12 -- Banks and Banking Section 34.45 -- Appraiser independence.
Title 12 -- Banks and Banking Section 225.63 -- Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser.
Title 12 -- Banks and Banking Section 225.65 -- Appraiser independence.
Title 12 -- Banks and Banking Section 323.3 -- Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser.
The department filed a lawsuit today in federal court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging a pattern or practice of violations of the Fair Housing Act by the owner and managers of Forum Manor Apartments for refusing to rent to African-Americans and males, refusing to allow tenants to have African-American visitors, sexually harassing female tenants and retaliating against tenants who complained about such discrimination.
Guest Post: Carlos Kelly on What Does The Florida Supreme Court's Ruling in System Components Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation Mean?
In July 2009, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in System Components Corp. v. Florida Dep't of Transportation, No. SC08-1507, which resolved resolved a conflict in the lower Florida courts regarding the application of business damages in a condemnation case under Florida Statutes § 73.071(3)(b). The court held that a business is not required to relocate as the result of a partial taking, but if it chooses to do so, only the actual damages suffered by the business are compensable, and "its business damages must be determined in light of its continued existence at its new location." We summarized the opinion here.
Florida eminent domain attorney Carlos A. Kelly authors today's post, an article about the meaning of the case.
What Does The Florida Supreme Court's Ruling in System Components Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation Mean?
In System Components Corp. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 14 So.3d 967, 971 (Fla. 2009), the Florida Supreme Court determined whether an award of business damages under §73.071 (3)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), in an eminent domain action may take into consideration only the actual damages sustained by the affected business when the business relocates after a partial taking. In a lengthy opinion, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that" if an affected business chooses to relocate, its business damages must be determined in light of its continued existence at its new location." Id. Systems Components is an important case because it changes how business owners must think when confronted by a right-of-way condemnation that could take some part of their land and damage their business. The route to this decision, in the words of The Beatles, was a "long and winding road."
At trial, the only issue involved was the proper measure of business damages in light of the relocation of the System Components facility and the continued existence and operation of the business at a new location. Id. at 973. The dispute at trial "centered on the significance of the statutory command that the land/business owner receive 'the probable damages to such business which the denial of the use of the property so taken may reasonably cause.'" System Components, 14 So.3d at 980. (citation omitted). System Components contended it was entitled to the total take value of its business as though the business had ceased to exist on the date of taking. Id. By making this argument, System Components wanted the court to overlook the fact that the business had actually relocated. Id.
The jury returned a verdict determining that the total value of the System Components business, as derived from an income-based approach, was $2,394,964.00. Id. at 974. The verdict determined that the business damages, in light of the relocation and continued existence of System Components, totaled $1,347,911.00. Id. After the trial court deducted the good-faith registry deposit of $348,300.00 from the business damages award of $1,347,911.00, the balance of business damages awarded to System Components totaled $999,611.00. Id.
System Components then sought review by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the trial court's award of business damages. Id. at 975. The Fifth District, however, certified a conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Florida Department of Transportation v. Tire Centers, LLC, 895 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). System Components, 14 So.3d at 975. In Tire Centers, the appellate court had found "that the trial court did not err by excluding consideration of mitigated business damages made by wayan off-site cure." System Components, 14 So.3d at 973 (citing Tire Centers) (emphasis supplied). In other words, the Fifth District in System Components and the Fourth District in Tire Centers reached opposite conclusions.
The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth District Court of Appeal's affirmance of the trial court's decision in the System Components litigation and rejected the Fourth District Court of Appeal's reasoning in the Tire Centers decision. Id. at 985. The Florida Supreme Court focused on the fact that System Components had relocated its business and never ceased operations. See generally id. As a result, the Florida Supreme Court seemed to suggest that the jury had simply calculated business damages based on what System Components had actually sustained in damages. Id. at 981. According to the Florida Supreme Court, to do otherwise would have provided System Components with a windfall because it would have received damages for a loss of business, when the business had actually continued, albeit at a different location. Cf. id. at 975-976 (approving the Fifth District's opinion in System Components as "well reasoned").
When a qualified partial taking destroys a business at its prior location, and the land/business owner chooses to relocate, the resulting business damages must be measured by the probable financial impact reasonably suffered as a result of the taking. Therefore, these business damages must be determined in light of the true economic realities of the given case, which, here, involved a relocated business's continued existence at its new location.
System Components, 14 So.3d at 985.
The legal rule announced by the Florida Supreme Court in System Components makes sense. If damages have not been suffered, and will not be suffered, then they should not be awarded. This is consistent with rules regarding the award of damages, generally. See 17 Florida Jurisprudence 2d, Damages §7 (2004) (plaintiff not entitled to recover compensatory damages in excess of an amount representing the loss actually caused by defendant's wrongful act).
The System Components decision should help practitioners and litigants because it clarifies an area of the law regarding business damages. Also, the System Components decision provides a comprehensive overview of damages and, in particular, business damages, in an eminent domain case. There is, however, at least one aspect of the case that is difficult to understand. Specifically, it is unclear why the business damages were reduced by the entire good-faith deposit amount. According to the Florida Supreme Court, the trial court's reason for the deduction was "to avoid the award of duplicative damages." Systems Components, 14 So.3d at 974.
The trial court's rationale was misplaced, however, in respect to a significant portion of the $348,300.00 good-faith deposit. Section 73.071 (3) (b), Florida Statutes, allows for an award of business damages, but business damages may not include compensation for property taken by the condemning authority. Instead, it is section 73.071 (3) (a), Florida Statutes, that implements the Florida Constitution's requirement of compensation for property taken by the condemning authority. In this case, the compensation for the property taken would be $88,300.00 for the value of the land taken by the condemnation and $109,400.00 for the value of the appurtenances and improvements taken by the condemnation.
The good-faith deposit of $348,300.00 included taking damages (i.e., compensation for property taken by the condemning authority, such as land and structures), severance damages, and demolition costs. System Components, 14 So.3d at 972. Only the severance damages ($130,900.00) and demolition costs ($19,700.00) could have overlapped with the $1,347,911.00 of business damages awarded by the jury because taking damages are not included within the statutory scheme authorizing business damages. See §§73.071 (3)(a), (b), Fla. Stats. (2009). As a result, it seems that the trial court improperly reduced System Components' business damages by $88,300.00 for the land taken and $109,400.00 for the improvements taken. It appears that, in total, the trial court incorrectly subtracted $197,700.00 from the business damages award. For whatever reason it appears that, System Components chose not to challenge this reduction. Perhaps System Components made the tactical decision to avoid litigating this issue on appeal so that the Fifth District could not "split the baby." In other words, perhaps System Components wanted to give the appellate court the choice to either deny all relief or award the full relief that System Components sought on appeal, rather than giving the appellate court the option of awarding the "middle ground" relief of correcting the $197,700.00 reduction.
This decision highlights the need for businesses, faced with right-of-way condemnation, to consult counsel in order to consider the impact of a relocation on a potential business damages award. Legal and business considerations must both be carefully weighed in order to take account of the new legal landscape.
. "The Long and Winding Road" originally appeared on the album "Let it Be" and became The Beatles' last number one song in the United States on May 23, 1970, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_and_Winding_Road (Oct. 12,2009).
$19,700.00 to demolish a portion of the building left standing on the remainder.
System Components, 14 So.3d at 972. The deposit was deducted from the business damages figure in order "to avoid the award of duplicative damages." Id. at 974 (citation omitted).
A federal expansion of tax breaks for businesses operating at a loss set off a flurry of calls between lawyers and real estate clients at the end of last week.
The Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009, signed by President Obama on Friday, expands a stimulus provision to let businesses apply 2008 and 2009 losses against taxes paid in the prior five years, rather than the previous two. The original provision was to expire at the end of the year and applied only to small businesses and 2008 losses.
It's not just a life raft to clients, but a business development opportunity for their lawyers.
"All bark and no bite." Typically, that is a fair description of regulatory takings litigation: the litigation generates a lot of noise and gnashing of teeth but, at the end of the day, rarely are government agencies bitten with an order that they pay compensation. But a new opinion from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (Sept. 28, 2009, Case No. 06-56306), demonstrates that regulatory takings litigation can have teeth. In Guggenheim, the Ninth Circuit holds that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance on mobile home parks went too far and that the City will have to pay the park's owners just compensation. This case, particularly coupled with two other recent regulatory takings cases, Monks and Casitas, suggests that agencies may now need to pay close attention to their regulations if they hope to avoid a regulatory takings bite.
A "regulatory taking" occurs when government regulation goes too far, "taking" property away from its owner. Similar to the government's physical taking of property, when the government takes property through a regulation, it must pay just compensation. That part is easy; the law is clear: if there is a regulatory taking, just compensation must be paid. The hard part is deciding when government regulation has gone too far, resulting in a taking. In fact, this part is so hard that lawsuits over regulatory takings usually resemble Alice's trip through Wonderland, with the parties falling in and out of state and then federal court (instead of a rabbit hole) based on procedural and substantive rules that often seem as logical as the Mad Hatter's recitals at the Tea Party. For example, under the "ripeness" doctrine, plaintiff landowners or developers are usually barred from federal court until they have exhausted their remedies in state court. But if they go to state court first, they find themselves later barred from federal court because they have already litigated the issues in state court.
The twisted path of regulatory takings litigation, however, has not usually been a bad thing for the government agency defendants: usually the procedural and substantive rules lead to a win for the agencies; they almost never are ordered to pay just compensation. In other words, while a "regulatory taking" may have sounded a loud bark, it usually lacked a real bite. With its opinion in Guggenheim, the Ninth Circuit may have added the bite of just compensation.
Nossaman Partner David Graeler is Chairing the IRWA Chapter 1 Annual Fall Seminar taking place on October 20 and Partner Michael Thornton will be participating in the presentation "Hot Legal Topics From the Perspective of an Agency Attorney and a Landowner Attorney." For additional information, click here.
Nossaman Partner Rick Friess is participating in the relocation panel presentation "The Changing Economy and Decisions Made on Moving or Not Moving" at the IRWA Chapter 57 Educational Seminar and Casino Night Fundraiser on October 16. For additional information, click here.
COMER, ET AL. V. MURPHY OIL USA, ET AL.
Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said commercial real estate woes won’t set off a new banking crisis, in remarks to the Economic Club of Chicago.
Commercial damages occur in breach-of-contract and business-tort cases that result in claims of lost profits or diminished business goodwill or business value. Intellectual-property-infringement cases and antitrust cases also can involve such loss claims. The measurement of damages in these types of case follows a basic methodology, with some variations in intellectual-property matters. Measurement of damages in securities-fraud cases uses a different approach. Since proof of damages is a frequent issue in civil litigation, forensic experts in all disciplines can benefit from an understanding of damages analysis.
Speaker: Jules H. Kamin, B.A.Sc., M.A., M.B.A., Ph.D.
Dr. Kamin is president of ValuEconomics, Inc. He has practiced for over twenty-two years as an expert witness in the areas of commercial and personal damages. His prior corporate experience involved positions in management of financial and economic analysis. He has taught graduate finance courses at both UCLA and USC. He attended the University of Chicago for his postgraduate business education after earning degrees in engineering physics and economics. Additional information is available at www.valu-econ.com or e-mail at jkamin@valu-econ.com.
RESERVATIONS: Required by all. Phone, email or fax RSVP.
$60 Non-Member Rate --It is FEWA policy that non-members must prepay.
Food. If veg. required please let us know ahead of time also any special dietary needs must be advised before meeting. There will be no substitutions at the meeting.
PAYMENT: Payment can be made by Visa, Mastercard or check. Payment can be made by check if received prior to meeting. Make check payable to FEWA and mail to: FEWA, 2549 Eastbluff Drive #497, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
Members: May pay at door.
Non-Members: Must phone, email or fax their RSVP with MC or Visa number and expiration date prior to the meeting.
CANCELLATION POLICY: Must cancel 48 hours prior to meeting for refund. Members who are no shows will be billed if a reservation was made and not cancelled 48 hours prior to meeting. Non-Member who are no shows will not be reimbursed if they did not cancel 48 hours prior.
Is a “Waiver Valuation” a Jurisdictional Exception?
Must a Review Appraiser be licensed or certified in the state jurisdiction where the subject property is located?
Can Appraisers Perform "Comp Check" Assignments?
Can Appraisers Perform "Comp Check" Assignments for Free?
Does Changing the Sale Price Result in a New Assignment?
Is it Permissible to Use MLS Photos for Comparable Sales?
Is it Permissible to Use MLS Photos for Active Listings?
Can an Appraiser Disclose the Identity of Past Clients in an Appraisal Report?
Does USPAP Require Identifying Appraisal Credentials?
Which USPAP Standards Apply to Personal Property Appraisal Consulting?
Does Appraising a Physical Segment Require Use of a Hypothetical Condition?
Must a Hypothetical Condition or Extraordinary Assumption be Labeled?
Is a Letter of Transmittal Part of an Appraisal Report?
When does Appraiser-Client Confidentiality End?
Are Instant Messages or Text Messages Appraisal Reports?
Is Compliance with STANDARD 3 Required when Submitting a Complaint?"
Can Access to a Workfile Be Denied?
Is an AVM an Appraisal?
Is a Transcript Required for Oral Reports and Testimony?
Is a Transcript Required if a Written Appraisal Report was Prepared?
Is a Transcript of the Entire Proceeding Required?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has joined Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in a bid to buy $3 billion in low-income housing tax credits from Fannie Mae. The transaction is politically sensitive and is currently being reviewed by the Treasury Department.
How will this proposed sale impact new transactions?
Can we expect to see a more active secondary market for LIHTCs?
Will this high profile transaction attract new investors to the market?
Are their any political repercussions?
Join us in Chicago November 9-10 to hear from John Simon, partner and head of the affordable housing practice at the Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, General Counsel for the Affordable Housing Investors Council and one of the leading advisers for tax credit investors and syndicators. He will be joined by leading leading investors and syndicators including: JPMorgan Capital, National Equity Fund, U.S. Bancorp and Great Lakes Capital.
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s public records law requires disclosure of metadata embedded in the electronic records.
The supreme court ruled in the case of a demoted police officer who wanted access to metadata to see whether notes written by his supervisor were backdated to justify the job action, according to the Associated Press and the Arizona Republic. Metadata can show when an electronic document was created or revised, and how it was altered.
The ruling is believed to be the first state supreme court ruling on public records and metadata, AP says.
WASHINGTON — People can now weatherize their homes and be rewarded for their efforts. According to the Internal Revenue Service, homeowners making energy-saving improvements this fall can cut their winter heating bills and lower their 2009 tax bill as well.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), enacted earlier this year, expanded two home energy tax credits: the nonbusiness energy property credit and the residential energy efficient property credit.
This credit equals 30 percent of what a homeowner spends on eligible energy-saving improvements, up to a maximum tax credit of $1,500 for the combined 2009 and 2010 tax years. The cost of certain high-efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, water heaters and stoves that burn biomass all qualify, along with labor costs for installing these items. In addition, the cost of energy-efficient windows and skylights, energy-efficient doors, qualifying insulation and certain roofs also qualify for the credit, though the cost of installing these items does not count.
By spending as little as $5,000 before the end of the year on eligible energy-saving improvements, a homeowner can save as much as $1,500 on his or her 2009 federal income tax return. Due to limits based on tax liability, other credits claimed by a particular taxpayer and other factors, actual tax savings will vary. These tax savings are on top of any energy savings that may result.
Homeowners going green should also check out a second tax credit designed to spur investment in alternative energy equipment. The residential energy efficient property credit, equals 30 percent of what a homeowner spends on qualifying property such as solar electric systems, solar hot water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, wind turbines, and fuel cell property. Generally, labor costs are included when calculating this credit. Also, no cap exists on the amount of credit available except in the case of fuel cell property.
Not all energy-efficient improvements qualify for these tax credits. For that reason, homeowners should check the manufacturer’s tax credit certification statement before purchasing or installing any of these improvements. The certification statement can usually be found on the manufacturer’s website or with the product packaging. Normally, a homeowner can rely on this certification. The IRS cautions that the manufacturer’s certification is different from the Department of Energy’s Energy Star label, and not all Energy Star labeled products qualify for the tax credits.
Eligible homeowners can claim both of these credits when they file their 2009 federal income tax return. Because these are credits, not deductions, they increase a taxpayer’s refund or reduce the tax he or she owes. An eligible taxpayer can claim these credits, regardless of whether he or she itemizes deductions on Schedule A. Use Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits, to figure and claim these credits. A draft version of this form is available now on IRS.gov.
On October 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035, the appeal challenging an attempt to take a shopping center by the District of Columbia and the National Capital Revitalization Corporation. We previewed the arguments and posted the briefs of the parties here.
The D.C. Circuit judges—Chief Judge David Sentelle was sitting with Senior Judges Stephen Williams and A. Raymond Randolph—grappled with just how many plaintiffs are left in the suit. Sentelle, during oral argument, ordered both sides to submit supplemental briefs that address the status of the plaintiffs.

References: § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 73
 v. 
 v. 
 §73
 v. 
 §7
 v. 
 V. 
 v.