Standards Rule 3-1

(a)

identify the reviewer’s client and intended users, the intended use of the reviewer’s opinions and conclusions, and the purpose of the assignment; (note43)

Comment: : The intended use is in the context of the client’s use of the reviewer’s opinions and conclusions; examples include, without limitation, quality control, audit, qualification, or confirmation. The purpose of the assignment relates to the reviewer’s objective; examples include, without limitation, to evaluate compliance with relevant USPAP requirements, with a client’s requirements, or with applicable regulations.

A reviewer must ascertain whether the assignment includes the development of his or her own opinion of value about the subject property of the work under review.

If the assignment includes the reviewer developing his or her own opinion of value about the subject property of the work under review, that opinion is an appraisal whether it:

• concurs with the opinion of value in the work under review, as of the date of value in that work or a different date of value; or

• differs from the opinion of value in the work under review, as of the date of value in that work or a different date of value.

(b)

identify the:

(i)

subject of the appraisal review assignment,

(ii)

effective date of the review, 

(iii)

property and ownership interest appraised (if any) in the work under review,

(iv)

date of the work under review and the effective date of the opinion or conclusion in the work under review, and

(v)

appraiser(s) who completed the work under review, unless the identity was withheld.

Comment: The subject of an appraisal review assignment may be all or part of a report, a workfile, or a combination of these, and may be related to an appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment.  

(c)

determine the scope of work necessary to produce credible assignment results in accordance with the SCOPE OF WORK RULE; (note44)
 

Comment: In making the scope of work decision, the reviewer must identify any extraordinary assumptions necessary in the assignment. An extraordinary assumption may be used in an appraisal review assignment only if:

• it is required to properly develop credible opinions and conclusions;

• the reviewer has a reasonable basis for the extraordinary assumption;

• use of the extraordinary assumption results in a credible analysis; and

• the reviewer complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in Standards Rule 3-2(d) for extraordinary assumptions.

The appraisal review must be conducted in the context of market conditions as of the effective date of the opinion in the work being reviewed. Information available to the reviewer that could not have been available to the appraiser as of or subsequent to the date of the work being reviewed must not be used by a reviewer in the development of an opinion as to the quality of the work under review.  

When the reviewer’s scope of work includes developing his or her own opinion of value, the following apply:

• The reviewer’s scope of work in developing his or her own opinion of value may be different from that of the work under review.  

• The effective date of the reviewer’s opinion of value may be the same or different from the date of the work under review.

• The reviewer is not required to replicate the steps completed by the original appraiser. Those items in the work under review that the reviewer concludes are credible and in compliance with the applicable development Standard (STANDARD 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 9) can be extended to the reviewer’s value opinion development process on the basis of an extraordinary assumption by the reviewer. Those items not deemed to be credible or in compliance must be replaced with information or analysis by the reviewer, developed in conformance with STANDARD 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 9, as applicable, to produce a credible value opinion.

• The reviewer may use additional information available to him or her that was not available to the original appraiser in the development of his or her value opinion; however, the reviewer must not use such information as the basis to discredit the original appraiser’s opinion of value.

(d)

develop an opinion as to the completeness of the material under review, given the reviewer’s scope of work;

Comment: The reviewer is required to develop an opinion as to the completeness of the work under review within the context of the requirements applicable to that work.

(e)

develop an opinion as to the apparent adequacy and relevance of the data and the propriety of any adjustments to the data, given the reviewer’s scope of work;

Comment: When reviewing a mass appraisal report and considering the propriety of any adjustment to value for isolated differences in data, the reviewer must develop an opinion as to the use of the coefficients from decomposition of a statistical model.

(f)

develop an opinion as to the appropriateness of the appraisal methods and techniques used, given the reviewer’s scope of work, and develop the reasons for any disagreement; and

(g)

develop an opinion as to whether the analyses, opinions, and conclusions are appropriate and reasonable, given the reviewer’s scope of work, and develop the reasons for any disagreement.

Comment: When reviewing a mass appraisal report, the reviewer must develop an opinion as to the standards of accuracy and adequacy of the mass appraisal testing performed and develop the reasons for any disagreement.