REA-L3C-2-2002-55                C alleges R is inaccurate in calculations regarding market rental. Board member reviewed and concluded that, due to numerous errors in the cost & sales approach, it appears the complaint is valid & investigation is warranted. INV revealed that R completed an amended report subsequent to client's request to change the borrower information; that R failed to maintain a copy of the original appraisal; that the report improperly identified rental rates; that R failed to maintain plans & specifications for subject property; INV revealed evidence of violations of ethics (record keeping) rule, Standards Rule 1-4(b) for failure to maintain plans & specs, & Standards Rule 1-1 for misleading info re: rental rates. Pro-review confirmed numerous USPSP violations. IBOL record also shows R entered into a consent agreement addressing the same issues raised in this report. Due to the age of the complaint (2000 USPAP), and the previous consent agreement, IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

REA-P2A-1-2003-16            Complainant alleged R failed to take responsibility for an appraisal containing fraudulent valuation. Board member reviewed and concluded further investigation is warranted. INV revealed that R maintains being a trainee at the time and places blame on father who is now deceased. IBOL records show R’s license was issued 21 days before appraisal report was completed and signed by R. R denies being contacted by IBOL regarding this matter, though records show contacts were made within 6 months of the complaint. R maintains that, due to the length of time since the appraisal, no records exist regarding this matter. Sent to DAG to determine if records should have been kept based on investigative contact. DAG recommended closure due to the appraisal in questions is beyond the 5 year retention requirement and the documents are unavailable. Based on the DAG's review, IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with advisory letter.

REA-L3-2-2004-24                C alleged R prepared a report using proposed plans, when the home has not actually been built. Lender believes R used inflated values. INV revealed that R conducted appraisal on a home that was not completed, & upon inspection at completion, lowered the original value. INV concluded that better notes in the work file would have provided answers to many questions. R Pro-review determined that R made some errors in quality ratings and improvements that resulted in an inflated value. R also failed to provide adequate explanation of why value was adjusted downward after completion. Due to the age of the complaint (2003 USPAP), IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with an advisory letter to use diligence in maintaining an adequate work file and

providing appropriate detailed explanations in reports.

REA-L3-2-2005-6                    C alleged R failed to prepare an adequate report: failed to note "as is" value; & failed to report completion date. INV revealed that "as is" value was not required, as the subject was new construction subject to completion per plans & specs. INV revealed that R did not include a completion date in report, though R did conduct an inspection upon completion. INV revealed evidence to support a "minor" violation of USPAP (2002. IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with an advisory that future reports of this nature include a completion date.

REA-L3-2-2005-7                    C alleged R failed to prepare an adequate report: failed to disclose hypothetical condition or estimated completion date of proposed improvements, fails to report estimate of exposure time; fails to support land value in cost approach; unsupported and misleading adjustments for comps. INV revealed that C filed only partial information and, once complete file was reviewed, no evidence was revealed to support any of the allegations. IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

REA-L3-2-2005-9                    C alleged R failed to prepare an adequate report: failed to disclose hypothetical condition or estimated completion date of proposed improvements, fails to report estimate of exposure time; fails to support land value in cost approach; failed to bracket gross living area; labeled unfinished bonus room as basement. Pro-review noted that R was in compliance regarding 5 of the 6 allegations, and concluded that R failed to include a completion date in the report. INV revealed evidence to support a "minor" violation of USPAP (2001), and did not reveal evidence to support the remaining allegations. IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with advisory regarding the requirement to include appropriate completion dates.

REA-P3-2-2005-34                C alleged that R prepared an inaccurate appraisal 3 years ago, because a recent appraisal concluded a value of $28,000 less. C also alleged that R included a shop in the appraisal when no shop existed. INV & pro-review revealed evidence to support minor and insignificant errors that did not affect the overall report or the resulting value. Pro-review concluded the work file was complete and supported R's conclusions. INV did not reveal evidence to support the allegations. IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

REA-L1A-2-2007-5                C alleged that R is LRA and not CRA and appraised a home at $1 million; & also missed a very large shop on a comparable. INV revealed that R is an LRA and prepared a report, listing the appraised value as $1 million. INV also revealed that the subject later sold for $875,000. A review of REA law notes that LRA's are "licensed to appraise residential real property consisting of one (1) to four (4) noncomplex residential units having a transaction value less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and complex one (1) to four (4) residential units having a transaction value less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000)." Based on the transaction value of the subject, the evidence suggests that R did not exceed the scope of LRA licensure. INV also revealed that the shop for comp #2 did not exist at the time the MLS listing and prior appraisal were conducted. INV did not reveal evidence to support the allegations or violations. IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.