|
Published by OREP, E&O Insurance Experts | July 18, 2013 |
 Print: Click to read current issue Am I a Working RE Paid Subscriber? |
>
Click to Print
|
Despite numerous objections
from appraisers and agent/brokers alike, a Florida bankruptcy judge has ruled
in favor of JPMorgan Chase in granting a Bar Order which absolves Chase of any
liability on future claims from appraisers, agents, and brokers for unpaid
fees for valuation services that were delivered to Chase through ESA.
Bankruptcy Court Absolves Chase of All Liability
by Isaac Peck, Associate
Editor
An alarming precedent has just been set for real estate appraisers, agents, and brokers in the bankruptcy case of Evaluation Solutions/ES Appraisal Services (ESA). Despite numerous objections from appraisers and agent/brokers alike, a Florida bankruptcy judge has ruled in favor of JPMorgan Chase in granting a Bar Order which absolves Chase of any liability on future claims from appraisers, agents, and brokers for unpaid fees for valuation services that were delivered to Chase through ESA.
Specifically, the Order “shall be deemed to have released Summit and JPMorgan Chase and each of their current and former…agents…from any and all known or unknown claims, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, liabilities, demands, losses, costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees).”
ESA declared bankruptcy in January 2013 with over 11 million dollars in unpaid debt, with an estimated 5 million in unpaid fees to appraisers, agents, and brokers. JPMorgan Chase was the client for 98% of ESA’s valuation business and was listed as the client on all of the appraisal reports that appraisers submitted to Chase through ESA. Read Stiffed Appraisers Go After Chase and Chase Denies Responsibility for Bankrupt AMC Debt.
(story continues below)
(story continues)
Agency Relationship
Within the appraisal community, the widely held understanding of the
relationship between a lender and its appraisal management company (AMC) has
been that of an agency relationship, wherein the AMC serves as the lender’s
agent, with the lender being responsible for the actions and obligations of its
agent. This is due to the fact that
federal regulations, including FIRREA and the Interagency Appraisal Guidelines,
require a lender to engage appraisers either directly or through “its agent.”
NOLO’s Plain English Law Dictionary defines agency as: “The relationship of a
person (called the agent) who acts on behalf of another person, company, or
government, known as the principal. The principal is responsible for the acts of
the agent, and the agent's acts bind the principal.”
However, the Court notes that “Agency” is nowhere defined in the federal
regulations and, consequently, the Court must revert to a common law definition
of agency. Using a common law definition of agency, wherein “the essential
element of agency is control,” the Court has ruled that no agency relationship
existed between Chase and ESA. The Court cites Section 14.8 of the Master
Service Agreement between Chase and ESA where it states that at all times ESA
was to remain “an independent contractor.”
In short, the Bar Order has been approved, in part, because ESA was not
Chase’s agent.
In its Glossary of Terms the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation
Guidelines admits that the regulations do not define the term, but states:
The Agencies' appraisal regulations do not specifically define the term
"agent." However, the term is generally intended to refer to one who undertakes
transacting business or managing business affairs for another.
Who’s the Client?
Richard Hagar, SRA points out that The 2010 Interagency Appraisal Guidelines
specifically state: “An institution or its agent must directly select and engage
appraisers.”
“This is very clear cut,” says Hagar, “It means that lenders are prohibited from
engaging non-appraisers for appraisal services. They must do it either directly
or through their agent.”
“In my opinion, it appears that Chase has knowingly violated numerous Federal
Regulations and statements by the banking agencies and ordered appraisals
through prohibited parties,” says Hagar.
Besides a potential violation of federal regulations, Hagar also says that this
may be a case of false representation. “Appraisers are consistently and
repeatedly told, by AMCs, that the AMC is acting as the agent on behalf of the
lender;
and consequently, appraisers are required to place the lender’s name on the appraisal
as the ‘client,’” says Hagar. "For example, Chase was listed
as the client on all of the appraisal reports it received from appraisers
through ESA."
Hagar, who has been involved in many high profile fraud cases as an expert
witness, says that there are arguably elements of fraud in a case like this.
Hagar points out that the general rule for fraud is that if there is a
misrepresentation and it alters an outcome, and that outcome causes financial
loss, then “fraud” has likely occurred. “If the appraiser had known that the AMC
was not the agent for Chase, then the appraiser would have placed the AMCs name
on the appraisal, not Chase’s. If the appraiser knew that the AMC was the
client, then they would have made alternate business decisions regarding payment
(which they never received). To me, appraisers may have an argument that Chase
has conspired with an AMC to misrepresent facts to the appraiser,” says Hagar.
(story continues below)
(story continues)
Hagar points to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 USC 45) which prohibits ‘‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.’’ These acts include:
-
A representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer;
-
A consumer’s interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable
-
AMC Master Service Agreements
An argument that was used by Chase and the bankruptcy judge in denying
appraisers' and agents’ claims against Chase is that because Chase and ESA
entered into a Master Service Agreement (MSA) that specifically defined ESA as
an “independent contractor,” ESA was consequently not Chase’s agent and that
Chase is not responsible or liable for ESA’s actions.
However, if this is true, it begs the question about Chase’s other MSAs, and the
agreements and arrangements that exist between lenders and AMCs across the
country.
Are AMCS, in fact, the agents of lenders?
Who is the client?
The answers to these questions will hopefully be clarified by regulators or
another court ruling shortly.
Sources close to the case say that appraisers and agents are planning to appeal
the bankruptcy judge’s decision and advance this case to an Appellate Court.
This is a developing story.
About the Author
Isaac Peck is the Associate Editor of Working RE Magazine and Marketing
Coordinator at OREP.org, a leading provider of E&O Insurance for appraisers,
inspectors, and other real estate professionals in 49 states. He received his
Bachelors in Business Management at San Diego State University. He can be
contacted at Isaac@orep.org or (888)
347-5273.
>
Click to Print
this Article
ATTENTION: You are receiving WRE Online News because you opted in at WorkingRE.com or purchased E&O insurance from OREP. WRE Online News Edition provides news-oriented content twice a month. The content for WRE Special Offer Editions is provided by paid sponsors. If you no longer wish to receive these emails from Working RE, please use the link found at the bottom of this newsletter to be removed from our mailing list.