Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  41 / 77 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 41 / 77 Next Page
Page Background

USPAP 2018-2019 Edition

© The Appraisal Foundation

29

STANDARD 3

• The reviewer’s own opinion regarding the work reviewed by another when the subject of the

review is the product of an appraisal review assignment.

These requirements apply whether the reviewer’s own opinion:

• concurs with the opinions and conclusions in the work under review; or

• differs from the opinion and conclusions in the work under review.

When the assignment includes the reviewer developing his or her own opinion of value or review

opinion, the following apply:

• The reviewer’s scope of work in developing his or her own opinion of value or review opinion 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

effective 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 can be extended to the

reviewer’s development process on the basis of an extraordinary assumption. Those items not

deemed to be credible must be replaced with information or analysis developed in conformance

with STANDARD 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9, as applicable, to produce credible assignment results.

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906