Coester VMS

I had an accepted offer to purchase a condo unit in Y [redacted] , NY in early July I was not yet in contractAn appraiser from Coester called me asking for access to the apartmentI gave him the telephone number of my realtor but also told him specifically not to do the appraisal because I was Not yet in contractdays later, he submitted his report with an appraised price matching my accepted offerI was upset that I was informed about this because I had specifically asked to be present during the appraisal processI called my realtor and it turns out that the appraiser called him when he was standing outside the building, expecting instant accessHe never made an appointment with him to get into the building never mind the apartmentBut what made me really angry and uncomfortable was when I read the report, it became clear to me that 1)he did not enter the building 2)he did not enter the apartment unit 3)he made his report using stock pictures copied from the internet of the WRONG apartment4)there were a few sales that took place in the same building but he did not use them, using instead, apartments that were not comparable and far awayMy complaints were ignored and when I filed a dispute about the charges, were told that I was wrong to not pay for services renderedNobody seems to care about the integrity of the report--only that the appraised value came back at exactly the amount accept

November 21, Revdex.com K StNW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- Re: Complaint ID [redacted] In response to the complaint filed by Mr [redacted] , We strongly deny that the appraisal was wrong merely because the value did not represent what Mr [redacted] desired to have for a value to have his home refinancedAll appraisals performed by certified appraisers must adhere to the guidelines of a federal document titled USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) USPAP confidentiality prevents us from discussing or disclosing appraisal results, but the actions of CoesterVMS do not constitute any wrongdoing as suggestedAn appraisal report was completed by an independent contractor hired by CoesterVMS, reviewed by CoesterVMS, and supplied to Mr [redacted] 's lender On a federal level there are many laws in place within the financial regulatory system to assure that an appraiser has the independence necessary to perform his/her role as neededThis includes the appraiser being free from influence to develop an unbiased opinion of valueThis opinion of value is used by the lender to make an informed lending decisionCoesterVMS takes seriously its role within the industry It is unfortunate that Mr [redacted] has not had a positive experience with his appraisalHowever, CoesterVMS had no part in the lender's decision to approve or deny Mr [redacted] ’s loanLikewise, CoesterVMS had no part in any credit, risk, or business decisions made by his lender based on the results of the appraisalUpon receipt of the report, Mr [redacted] took issue with the value opinion which was stated in the reportAdditional sales were identified by Mr [redacted] or his lender as potential comparables to be considered, this is known as a value rebuttal requestIn an effort to provide superior customer service, these were provided by CoesterVMS to the appraiser for considerationWhen these additional comparables did not provide the value that was desired, an additional attempt was made to submit more properties to use as comparablesIt is important to note that it is a violation of state and federal law for anyone to pressure an appraiser to change his valueTo prohibit the appearance of a lender “fishing” for a value conclusion or appearing as pressuring the appraiser, one value rebuttal is allowed per propertyThis is clearly identified in the form that was completed by the lenderThe appraiser did his job: he provided an unbiased opinion of value The appraisal quality is not being argued nor was it diminished, it simply did not meet the value conclusion the homeowner desired To suggest that CoesterVMS or the appraiser should not be paid because a predetermined homeowner value was not met is simply not acceptable CoesterVMS performed its duty by providing an unbiased opinion of value on the property for a fee that was agreed upon with Mr [redacted] ’s lenderAs a result, we will not issue a refund as requested by Mr [redacted] Sincerely, Toni B [redacted] Compliance Director

September 18, 2015Dear [redacted] ,On 9/17/2015, CoesterVMS received your email regarding the above-referenced consumer complaintAccording to your email, the complaint was submitted on 8/12/by [redacted] of [redacted] ***, Jackson, MI ***In his complaint, [redacted] requested a refund of $due to a value difference between two appraisal reports and his reported denial of a loan.CoesterVMS' response is as followsIn anticipation of a refinance, our client ordered an appraisal report from an independent appraiser that was completed on 2/24/The appraisal report included three parcels of landThe first parcel of land consisted of a house and approximately acresThe second and third parcels consisted of approximately acres combinedThe value of all three of these parcels taken together, and as reflected on the first appraisal referenced in [redacted] 's complaint, was $145,000.A year later, our client ordered a second appraisal that was completed on 3/8/In this second appraisal, as referenced in [redacted] 's complaint, only one parcel-the one containing the house and the acres-- was valued, with said value coming in at $100,Contrary to [redacted] 's complaint, that second appraisal report did include the garage that [redacted] referencedHowever, the second appraisal did not include the two additional parcels that together, Consisted of acresThe difference in the value between the two appraisals that [redacted] referenced in his complaint, is explained by the difference in the number of parcels included in the two reports and any market changes that took place as reflected in the Comparables.The first appraisal report reflects a higher value as it valued all three parcels, whereas the second appraisal was lower because it only valued one parcelClearly, the two reports contain different collateral and as a result, cannot be compared and judged as incorrect.It is also important to note that both of the aforementioned appraisal reports were each completed by an independent appraiser and per our client's instructionsThank you for the opportunity to respondWe hope that this information addresses [redacted] 's concerns.Sincerely,Brian C.CEO

According to your email, the above-reference complaint was submitted on 11/3/by Mr [redacted] against CoesterVMS, CoesterVMS strongly denies all of Mr***'s allegations and responds as followsWith respect to Mr***'s complaint, CoesterVMS would first like to clarify its relationship to Mr [redacted] and to The [redacted] (the “Appraiser") as it pertains to this situationCoesterVMS hired the Appraiser on behalf of Mr***'s lending institution (“Lender”)Neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser were or are employed by Mr***Also, neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser is in privy of contract with Mr***On the contrary, CoesterVMS' contractual duty is to the LenderCoesterVMS’ duty is to engage an Appraiser who will create an independent appraisal of the property in order for the Lender to make an informed decision regarding the use of that property as collateral for a loanAdditionally, as explained to Mr [redacted] in our email to him of November 8, 2015, CoesterVMS is legally barred from influencing the appraisers that it engages on behalf of the LenderTherefore, when Mr [redacted] states that CoesterVMS incorrectly appraised his property or had anything to do with the preparation or judgment calls included in the appraisal, he is misstating the factsCoesterVMS does not and is not allowed to participate in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisalTo do so would be to render our own Certificate of Non-Influence null and void and would constitute a violation of lawIn his complaint, Mr [redacted] erroneously states that CoesterVMS created the appraisal when in fact we did notThe appraisal was produced by the independent Appraiser onlyAs a result, with respect to the process of creating the appraisal and considering data for the appraisal, Mr***'s accusations of wrong doing on the part of CoesterVMS are completely unfounded Although CoesterVMS is not allowed to participate in the creation of the appraisal or otherwise influence the appraisal, upon learning of Mr***'s issue with the value opinion of his property and in an effort to provide superior customer service, a sale identified by Mr [redacted] as a potential comparable was provided by CoesterVMS to the Appraiser for consideration through appropriate legal channelsThis is the only action that CoesterVMS could take in response to Mr***'s complaint about the valuation of his propertyAs a result of CoesterVMS' comparable submission to the Appraiser and an appeal of the appraisal lodged by Mr***, the Appraiser prepared an addendum to the original appraisal addressing each of the issues in the appealIn his addendum, the Appraiser excluded Mr***'s comparable based upon his reasonable judgment as an appraiserIn his evaluation of Mr***'s comparable, the Appraiser found that the comparable had a living area and a sale date within the defined search parameters for Mr***'s propertyHowever, the comparable was not considered to be as reliable as the comparables already included in the appraisal because it had a sales date that was less recent and its gross living area was larger than any sale that was already included in the appraisal as a comparableAs such, the Appraiser found that it was not as reliable a comparable and he declined to use it in the appraisalAll of this information was included in the [redacted] property appraisal and addendumIt is unfortunate that Mr [redacted] has not had a positive experience with the appraisalHowever, CoesterVMS had no part in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal nor the Lender's decision to approve or deny Mr***'s loanTherefore, although CoesterVMS' understands that Mr [redacted] is frustrated with the valuation of his property, as its performance pertains to this appraisal, CoesterVMS provided the requested services within the confines of applicable regulationRespectfully, [redacted] In-house Counsel

September 18, 2015Dear [redacted] , On 9/17/2015, CoesterVMS received your email regarding the above-referenced consumer complaintAccording to your email, the complaint was submitted on 8/12/by [redacted] of [redacted] ***, Jackson, MI ***In his complaint, *** [redacted] requested a refund of $due to a value difference between two appraisal reports and his reported denial of a loan.CoesterVMS' response is as followsIn anticipation of a refinance, our client ordered an appraisal report from an independent appraiser that was completed on 2/24/The appraisal report included three parcels of landThe first parcel of land consisted of a house and approximately acresThe second and third parcels consisted of approximately acres combinedThe value of all three of these parcels taken together, and as reflected on the first appraisal referenced in [redacted] 's complaint, was $145,A year later, our client ordered a second appraisal that was completed on 3/8/In this second appraisal, as referenced in [redacted] 's complaint, only one parcel-the one containing the house and the acres-- was valued, with said value coming in at $100,Contrary to [redacted] 's complaint, that second appraisal report did include the garage that [redacted] referencedHowever, the second appraisal did not include the two additional parcels that together, Consisted of acresThe difference in the value between the two appraisals that [redacted] referenced in his complaint, is explained by the difference in the number of parcels included in the two reports and any market changes that took place as reflected in the Comparables.The first appraisal report reflects a higher value as it valued all three parcels, whereas the second appraisal was lower because it only valued one parcelClearly, the two reports contain different collateral and as a result, cannot be compared and judged as incorrectIt is also important to note that both of the aforementioned appraisal reports were each completed by an independent appraiser and per our client's instructionsThank you for the opportunity to respondWe hope that this information addresses [redacted] 's concernsSincerely, Brian CCEO

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Brian's statement is false, The appraiser indicates that most of the land is vacant, and on separate parcels and the overall 20+- acres is larger than typical for the marketHe has decided that only the improved parcel has contributory value and the remaining 19+- acres is excess land Mind you that this is one continuous property with the Home, it does have different tax id'sThis was a refinance and The appraiser did not give the value of what is being mortgagedThe deed is what is currently being mortgaged Regards, [redacted]

According to your email, the above-reference complaint was submitted on 11/3/2015 by Mr. [redacted] against CoesterVMS, CoesterVMS strongly denies all of Mr. ***'s allegations and responds as follows.With respect to Mr. ***'s complaint, CoesterVMS would first like to clarify its relationship... to Mr. [redacted] and to The [redacted] (the “Appraiser") as it pertains to this situation. CoesterVMS hired the Appraiser on behalf of Mr. ***'s lending institution (“Lender”). Neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser were or are employed by Mr. ***. Also, neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser is in privy of contract with Mr. ***. On the contrary, CoesterVMS' contractual duty is to the Lender. CoesterVMS’ duty is to engage an Appraiser who will create an independent appraisal of the property in order for the Lender to make an informed decision regarding the use of that property as collateral for a loan. Additionally, as explained to Mr. [redacted] in our email to him of November 8, 2015, CoesterVMS is legally barred from influencing the appraisers that it engages on behalf of the Lender. Therefore, when Mr. [redacted] states that CoesterVMS incorrectly appraised his property or had anything to do with the preparation or judgment calls included in the appraisal, he is misstating the facts. CoesterVMS does not and is not allowed to participate in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal. To do so would be to render our own Certificate of Non-Influence null and void and would constitute a violation of law. In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] erroneously states that CoesterVMS created the appraisal when in fact we did not. The appraisal was produced by the independent Appraiser only. As a result, with respect to the process of creating the appraisal and considering data for the appraisal, Mr. ***'s accusations of wrong doing on the part of CoesterVMS are completely unfounded. Although CoesterVMS is not allowed to participate in the creation of the appraisal or otherwise influence the appraisal, upon learning of Mr. ***'s issue with the value opinion of his property and in an effort to provide superior customer service, a sale identified by Mr. [redacted] as a potential comparable was provided by CoesterVMS to the Appraiser for consideration through appropriate legal channels. This is the only action that CoesterVMS could take in response to Mr. ***'s complaint about the valuation of his property. As a result of CoesterVMS' comparable submission to the Appraiser and an appeal of the appraisal lodged by Mr. ***, the Appraiser prepared an addendum to the original appraisal addressing each of the issues in the appeal. In his addendum, the Appraiser excluded Mr. ***'s comparable based upon his reasonable judgment as an appraiser.In his evaluation of Mr. ***'s comparable, the Appraiser found that the comparable had a living area and a sale date within the defined search parameters for Mr. ***'s property. However, the comparable was not considered to be as reliable as the comparables already included in the appraisal because it had a sales date that was less recent and its gross living area was larger than any sale that was already included in the appraisal as a comparable. As such, the Appraiser found that it was not as reliable a comparable and he declined to use it in the appraisal. All of this information was included in the [redacted] property appraisal and addendum.It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] has not had a positive experience with the appraisal. However, CoesterVMS had no part in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal nor the Lender's decision to approve or deny Mr. ***'s loan. Therefore, although CoesterVMS' understands that Mr. [redacted] is frustrated with the valuation of his property, as its performance pertains to this appraisal, CoesterVMS provided the requested services within the confines of applicable regulation.Respectfully, [redacted] In-house Counsel

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Comps were taken in a totally different neighborhood (tract homes) versus custom homes Comparasons, as stated by my apprasial office should be compared agaist like properties!Further, it;s unfortunate that this "Lender" didn't read that in my previous complaint, which was also stated to the "Lender" in previous correspondese with the "Lender" and it's representatives
Regards,
*** ***

November 18, 2015Dear *** ***,This is CoesterVMS' second and final response to the above-referenced consumer complaintAs communicated before, with respect to the appraisal of *** ***'s property, the assignment from the tender was to provide an appraisal on *** *** **There were no special instructions in the assignment from the lender regarding whether to value one, two, or three lots, or any combination of the threeFurthermore, a deed, title, or survey was not provided to the appraiser prior to the effective dateHowever-and this is the critical point--even if there were a specific direction from the lender, the ultimate judgment call with respect to the scope of the appraisal is always up to the independent appraiserNeither the borrower, nor the ender, nor the AMC (CoesterVMS) can define the scope because this would violate the federal requirement that the appraiser develop the appraisal independent of any influenceIn this case, the appraiser followed FHA/HUD protocol in treating the unimproved lots as excess landAll of this was explained on page of the addendumIn the appraiser's expert and independent opinion, the 19+-acres were considered excess land as federally defined under FHA/HUD,CoesterVMS would like to reiterate and underscore that it is not the job of CoesterVMS, as an AMC, to defend the independent appraiser's choice to call the 19+- acres excess land, instead, it is our responsibility to the Lender to make sure that if the independent appraiser deemed two of the three lots to be excess land, that the appraiser treated them in compliance with FHA/HUD guidelines, used best practices to write the report, provided credible results which were clear to the client (the Lender), followed lender/investor guidelines, and was USPAP compliantIn this specific case, this report was reviewed by CoesterVMS and found to be compliant with all of the foregoing requirements.Sincerely,Tobi A.In-house Counsel

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Brian's statement is false,
The appraiser indicates that most of
the land is vacant, and on separate parcels and the overall 20+- acres is
larger than typical for the marketHe has decided that only the improved
parcel has contributory value and the remaining 19+- acres is excess land. Mind you that this is one continuous property with the Home, it does have different tax id's.This was a refinance and The appraiser did not give the value of what is being mortgagedThe deed is what is currently being mortgaged.
Regards,
*** ***

In response to the complaint filed by *** ***, we strongly deny that the appraisal is not accurate merely because the homeowner could not use it to defend his property assessmentAll appraisals performed by Certified appraisers for lending purposes must adhere to the guidelines of a federal
document titled USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice)An appraisal report was completed by an independent contractor hired by CoesterVMS, reviewed by CoesterVMS, and supplied to *** *** lender, for an intended use of lending purposes onlyUSPAP confidentiality prevents us from discussing or disclosing appraisal results, but the actions of CoesterVMS do not constitute any Wrongdoing as Suggested.The research and analysis for an appraisal report for lending purposes is different than the research and analysis done for a property tax appealThus if the research and analysis are different, it goes to reason that the conclusion very well may differentAt no point was the intended use stated as anything beyond lendingIt is unfortunate that *** ** did not understand that this report's sole purpose was for lendingShould *** *** have desired an appraisal report for tax appeal purposes, he could have hired an independent appraiser for that intended function.On a federal level there are many laws in place within the financial regulatory system to assure that an appraiser has the independence necessary to perform his/her role as neededThis includes the appraiser being free from influence to develop an unbiased opinion of valueThis opinion of value is used by the lender (our client) to make an informed lending decisionCoesterVMS takes seriously its role within the industryIt is important to note that we have a value reConsideration process which a lender may utilize if they feel that there are concerns with regard to the value conclusionNo Such request was made on this file, deeming it acceptable for lending purposes by the intended user.The appraiser did his job: he provided an unbiased opinion of valueThe intended user was the lenderThe independent third party was CoesterVMSThe appraisal is being argued simply because it cannot be used for a homeowners Secondary (and unintended) useTo suggest that CoesterVMS should not be paid because a homeowner chose to use a report for a purpose other than the original purpose is simply not acceptableCoesterVMS performed its duty by providing an unbiased opinion of value on the property for a fee that was agreed upon with *** *** lender.*** *** was not the intended user nor is he using the report for the intended useAs a result, we will not issue a refund simply because *** *** could not use the appraisal for an alternative use that was not the purpose of the report

November 21, Revdex.com K StNW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005- Re: Complaint ID *** In response to the complaint filed by Mr***, We strongly deny that the appraisal was wrong merely because the value did not represent what Mr*** desired to have for
a value to have his home refinancedAll appraisals performed by certified appraisers must adhere to the guidelines of a federal document titled USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) USPAP confidentiality prevents us from discussing or disclosing appraisal results, but the actions of CoesterVMS do not constitute any wrongdoing as suggestedAn appraisal report was completed by an independent contractor hired by CoesterVMS, reviewed by CoesterVMS, and supplied to Mr***'s lender On a federal level there are many laws in place within the financial regulatory system to assure that an appraiser has the independence necessary to perform his/her role as neededThis includes the appraiser being free from influence to develop an unbiased opinion of valueThis opinion of value is used by the lender to make an informed lending decisionCoesterVMS takes seriously its role within the industry It is unfortunate that Mr*** has not had a positive experience with his appraisalHowever, CoesterVMS had no part in the lender's decision to approve or deny Mr***’s loanLikewise, CoesterVMS had no part in any credit, risk, or business decisions made by his lender based on the results of the appraisalUpon receipt of the report, Mr*** took issue with the value opinion which was stated in the reportAdditional sales were identified by Mr*** or his lender as potential comparables to be considered, this is known as a value rebuttal requestIn an effort to provide superior customer service, these were provided by CoesterVMS to the appraiser for considerationWhen these additional comparables did not provide the value that was desired, an additional attempt was made to submit more properties to use as comparablesIt is important to note that it is a violation of state and federal law for anyone to pressure an appraiser to change his valueTo prohibit the appearance of a lender “fishing” for a value conclusion or appearing as pressuring the appraiser, one value rebuttal is allowed per propertyThis is clearly identified in the form that was completed by the lenderThe appraiser did his job: he provided an unbiased opinion of value The appraisal quality is not being argued nor was it diminished, it simply did not meet the value conclusion the homeowner desired To suggest that CoesterVMS or the appraiser should not be paid because a predetermined homeowner value was not met is simply not acceptable CoesterVMS performed its duty by providing an unbiased opinion of value on the property for a fee that was agreed upon with Mr***’s lenderAs a result, we will not issue a refund as requested by Mr*** Sincerely, Toni B*** Compliance Director

September 18, 2015Dear [redacted],
On 9/17/2015, CoesterVMS received your email regarding the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to your email, the complaint was submitted on 8/12/2015 by [redacted] of [redacted], Jackson, MI [redacted]. In his complaint, [redacted]...

[redacted] requested a refund of $500.00 due to a value difference between two appraisal reports and his reported denial of a loan.CoesterVMS' response is as follows. In anticipation of a refinance, our client ordered an appraisal report from an independent appraiser that was completed on 2/24/2014. The appraisal report included three parcels of land. The first parcel of land consisted of a house and approximately 0.93 acres. The second and third parcels consisted of approximately 19.07 acres combined. The value of all three of these parcels taken together, and as reflected on the first appraisal referenced in [redacted]'s complaint, was $145,000.
A year later, our client ordered a second appraisal that was completed on 3/8/2015. In this second appraisal, as referenced in [redacted]'s complaint, only one parcel-the one containing the house and the 0.93 acres-- was valued, with said value coming in at $100,000. Contrary to [redacted]'s complaint, that second appraisal report did include the garage that [redacted] referenced. However, the second appraisal did not include the two additional parcels that together, Consisted of 19.07 acres. The difference in the value between the two appraisals that [redacted] referenced in his complaint, is explained by the difference in the number of parcels included in the two reports and any market changes that took place as reflected in the Comparables.The first appraisal report reflects a higher value as it valued all three parcels, whereas the second appraisal was lower because it only valued one parcel. Clearly, the two reports contain different collateral and as a result, cannot be compared and judged as incorrect.
It is also important to note that both of the aforementioned appraisal reports were each completed by an independent appraiser and per our client's instructions. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. We hope that this information addresses [redacted]'s concerns.
Sincerely,
Brian C.
CEO

According to your email, the above-reference complaint was submitted on 11/3/2015 by Mr. [redacted] against CoesterVMS, CoesterVMS strongly denies all of...

Mr. [redacted]'s allegations and responds as follows.
With respect to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint, CoesterVMS would first like to clarify its relationship to Mr. [redacted] and to The [redacted] (the “Appraiser") as it pertains to this situation. CoesterVMS hired the Appraiser on behalf of Mr. [redacted]'s lending institution (“Lender”). Neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser were or are employed by Mr. [redacted]. Also, neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser is in privy of contract with Mr. [redacted]. On the contrary, CoesterVMS' contractual duty is to the Lender. CoesterVMS’ duty is to engage an Appraiser who will create an independent appraisal of the property in order for the Lender to make an informed decision regarding the use of that property as collateral for a loan. Additionally, as explained to Mr. [redacted] in our email to him of November 8, 2015, CoesterVMS is legally barred from influencing the appraisers that it engages on behalf of the Lender. Therefore, when Mr. [redacted] states that CoesterVMS incorrectly appraised his property or had anything to do with the preparation or judgment calls included in the appraisal, he is misstating the facts. CoesterVMS does not and is not allowed to participate in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal. To do so would be to render our own Certificate of Non-Influence null and void and would constitute a violation of law. In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] erroneously states that CoesterVMS created the appraisal when in fact we did not. The appraisal was produced by the independent Appraiser only. As a result, with respect to the process of creating the appraisal and considering data for the appraisal, Mr. [redacted]'s accusations of wrong doing on the part of CoesterVMS are completely unfounded.
 
Although CoesterVMS is not allowed to participate in the creation of the appraisal or otherwise influence the appraisal, upon learning of Mr. [redacted]'s issue with the value opinion of his property and in an effort to provide superior customer service, a sale identified by Mr. [redacted] as a potential comparable was provided by CoesterVMS to the Appraiser for consideration through appropriate legal channels. This is the only action that CoesterVMS could take in response to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint about the valuation of his property. As a result of CoesterVMS' comparable submission to the Appraiser and an appeal of the appraisal lodged by Mr. [redacted], the Appraiser prepared an addendum to the original appraisal addressing each of the issues in the appeal. In his addendum, the Appraiser excluded Mr. [redacted]'s comparable based upon his reasonable judgment as an appraiser.
In his evaluation of Mr. [redacted]'s comparable, the Appraiser found that the comparable had a living area and a sale date within the defined search parameters for Mr. [redacted]'s property. However, the comparable was not considered to be as reliable as the comparables already included in the appraisal because it had a sales date that was less recent and its gross living area was larger than any sale that was already included in the appraisal as a comparable. As such, the Appraiser found that it was not as reliable a comparable and he declined to use it in the appraisal. All of this information was included in the [redacted] property appraisal and addendum.
It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] has not had a positive experience with the appraisal. However, CoesterVMS had no part in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal nor the Lender's decision to approve or deny Mr. [redacted]'s loan. Therefore, although CoesterVMS' understands that Mr. [redacted] is frustrated with the valuation of his property, as its performance pertains to this appraisal, CoesterVMS provided the requested services within the confines of applicable regulation.
Respectfully,
[redacted]
In-house Counsel

According to your email, the above-reference complaint was submitted on 11/3/2015 by Mr. [redacted] against CoesterVMS, CoesterVMS strongly denies all of Mr. [redacted]'s allegations and responds as follows.With respect to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint, CoesterVMS would first like to clarify its relationship...

to Mr. [redacted] and to The [redacted] (the “Appraiser") as it pertains to this situation. CoesterVMS hired the Appraiser on behalf of Mr. [redacted]'s lending institution (“Lender”). Neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser were or are employed by Mr. [redacted]. Also, neither CoesterVMS nor the Appraiser is in privy of contract with Mr. [redacted]. On the contrary, CoesterVMS' contractual duty is to the Lender. CoesterVMS’ duty is to engage an Appraiser who will create an independent appraisal of the property in order for the Lender to make an informed decision regarding the use of that property as collateral for a loan. Additionally, as explained to Mr. [redacted] in our email to him of November 8, 2015, CoesterVMS is legally barred from influencing the appraisers that it engages on behalf of the Lender. Therefore, when Mr. [redacted] states that CoesterVMS incorrectly appraised his property or had anything to do with the preparation or judgment calls included in the appraisal, he is misstating the facts. CoesterVMS does not and is not allowed to participate in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal. To do so would be to render our own Certificate of Non-Influence null and void and would constitute a violation of law. In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] erroneously states that CoesterVMS created the appraisal when in fact we did not. The appraisal was produced by the independent Appraiser only. As a result, with respect to the process of creating the appraisal and considering data for the appraisal, Mr. [redacted]'s accusations of wrong doing on the part of CoesterVMS are completely unfounded. Although CoesterVMS is not allowed to participate in the creation of the appraisal or otherwise influence the appraisal, upon learning of Mr. [redacted]'s issue with the value opinion of his property and in an effort to provide superior customer service, a sale identified by Mr. [redacted] as a potential comparable was provided by CoesterVMS to the Appraiser for consideration through appropriate legal channels. This is the only action that CoesterVMS could take in response to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint about the valuation of his property. As a result of CoesterVMS' comparable submission to the Appraiser and an appeal of the appraisal lodged by Mr. [redacted], the Appraiser prepared an addendum to the original appraisal addressing each of the issues in the appeal. In his addendum, the Appraiser excluded Mr. [redacted]'s comparable based upon his reasonable judgment as an appraiser.In his evaluation of Mr. [redacted]'s comparable, the Appraiser found that the comparable had a living area and a sale date within the defined search parameters for Mr. [redacted]'s property. However, the comparable was not considered to be as reliable as the comparables already included in the appraisal because it had a sales date that was less recent and its gross living area was larger than any sale that was already included in the appraisal as a comparable. As such, the Appraiser found that it was not as reliable a comparable and he declined to use it in the appraisal. All of this information was included in the [redacted] property appraisal and addendum.It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] has not had a positive experience with the appraisal. However, CoesterVMS had no part in the independent Appraiser's creation of the appraisal nor the Lender's decision to approve or deny Mr. [redacted]'s loan. Therefore, although CoesterVMS' understands that Mr. [redacted] is frustrated with the valuation of his property, as its performance pertains to this appraisal, CoesterVMS provided the requested services within the confines of applicable regulation.Respectfully,[redacted] In-house Counsel

I am rejecting the response as it is pure fiction for a number of reasons as stated below:1. My payment, as shown on the credit card statement was made to "CoesterVMS". This was not my lender and it was not the [redacted]. This clearly shows that I paid Coester for an appraisal, and they provided it to me. Regardless of any third parties involved in the process, a legally binding contract was formed between myself and the business when they accepted my payment and performed the work. Furthermore, the invoice I received clearly states that it is from them, and not the lender as they claim.2. While Coester may not be able to participate in the decision of the appraiser, they did state to me on more than one occasion that they have reviewed and accepted the report. They had the opportunity to reject the report and contract with a different company, but they chose not to due to the fact that it would cost them more money. Instead, they took the easy way out and decided that no further work was necessary, even though it clearly was.3. In regards to the comparable properties used, there were 5 comparables listed in the report BUT only one of them was used for valuation purposes. This means that the others had no basis in arriving at the value decision meaning they are completely irrelevant. Coester keeps on mentioning that the property we asked to be included does not compare to them, yet these have no effect whatsoever on the valuation of my property so they are only in the report for "show" purposes. 4. In regards to the property that was excluded, they have clearly stated in their response that it falls within the acceptable parameters. Their line that it is larger and sold longer ago than comparables is irrelevant for two reasons and contradicts the statement immediately prior to that. Firstly, by their own admission, it is within acceptable parameters. Secondly, only one comparable was used for the valuation so the other 4 properties should not be a factor as they had no effect on the report. The only reason that this property was excluded was because the appraiser did not find it when he prepared the initial report, then was too stubborn to include it once it was brought to his attention. I have spoken to other realtors in the area all who confirm that there is no legal basis for not considering this property.As Coester appear to be unable to resolve my dispute, the next step is to take further action against them. I have filed a chargeback claim on my credit card for the full amount of payment and I will pursue action with the Attorney General unless they can find an acceptable resolution.
 Complaint: [redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]

November 21, 2016   Revdex.com
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1411 K St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404   Re: Complaint ID [redacted]   In response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted], We strongly deny that the appraisal was wrong merely because the value did not represent what Mr. [redacted] desired to have for a value to have his home refinanced. All appraisals performed by certified appraisers must adhere to the guidelines of a federal document titled USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice).  USPAP confidentiality prevents us from discussing or disclosing appraisal results, but the actions of CoesterVMS do not constitute any wrongdoing as suggested. An appraisal report was completed by an independent contractor hired by CoesterVMS, reviewed by CoesterVMS, and supplied to Mr. [redacted]'s lender.   On a federal level there are many laws in place within the financial regulatory system to assure that an appraiser has the independence necessary to perform his/her role as needed. This includes the appraiser being free from influence to develop an unbiased opinion of value. This opinion of value is used by the lender to make an informed lending decision. CoesterVMS takes seriously its role within the industry.   It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] has not had a positive experience with his appraisal. However, CoesterVMS had no part in the lender's decision to approve or deny Mr. [redacted]’s loan. Likewise, CoesterVMS had no part in any credit, risk, or business decisions made by his lender based on the results of the appraisal. Upon receipt of the report, Mr. [redacted] took issue with the value opinion which was stated in the report. Additional sales were identified by Mr. [redacted] or his lender as potential comparables to be considered, this is known as a value rebuttal request. In an effort to provide superior customer service, these were provided by CoesterVMS to the appraiser for consideration. When these additional comparables did not provide the value that was desired, an additional attempt was made to submit more properties to use as comparables. It is important to note that it is a violation of state and federal law for anyone to pressure an appraiser to change his value. To prohibit the appearance of a lender “fishing” for a value conclusion or appearing as pressuring the appraiser, one value rebuttal is allowed per property. This is clearly identified in the form that was completed by the lender. The appraiser did his job: he provided an unbiased opinion of value.  The appraisal quality is not being argued nor was it diminished, it simply did not meet the value conclusion the homeowner desired.  To suggest that CoesterVMS or the appraiser should not be paid because a predetermined homeowner value was not met is simply not acceptable.  CoesterVMS performed its duty by providing an unbiased opinion of value on the property for a fee that was agreed upon with Mr. [redacted]’s lender. As a result, we will not issue a refund as requested by Mr. [redacted].   Sincerely,   Toni B[redacted] Compliance Director

September 18, 2015Dear [redacted],On 9/17/2015, CoesterVMS received your email regarding the above-referenced consumer complaint. According to your email, the complaint was submitted on 8/12/2015 by [redacted] of [redacted], Jackson, MI [redacted]. In his complaint, [redacted] requested a...

refund of $500.00 due to a value difference between two appraisal reports and his reported denial of a loan.CoesterVMS' response is as follows. In anticipation of a refinance, our client ordered an appraisal report from an independent appraiser that was completed on 2/24/2014. The appraisal report included three parcels of land. The first parcel of land consisted of a house and approximately 0.93 acres. The second and third parcels consisted of approximately 19.07 acres combined. The value of all three of these parcels taken together, and as reflected on the first appraisal referenced in [redacted]'s complaint, was $145,000.A year later, our client ordered a second appraisal that was completed on 3/8/2015. In this second appraisal, as referenced in [redacted]'s complaint, only one parcel-the one containing the house and the 0.93 acres-- was valued, with said value coming in at $100,000. Contrary to [redacted]'s complaint, that second appraisal report did include the garage that [redacted] referenced. However, the second appraisal did not include the two additional parcels that together, Consisted of 19.07 acres. The difference in the value between the two appraisals that [redacted] referenced in his complaint, is explained by the difference in the number of parcels included in the two reports and any market changes that took place as reflected in the Comparables.The first appraisal report reflects a higher value as it valued all three parcels, whereas the second appraisal was lower because it only valued one parcel. Clearly, the two reports contain different collateral and as a result, cannot be compared and judged as incorrect.It is also important to note that both of the aforementioned appraisal reports were each completed by an independent appraiser and per our client's instructions. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. We hope that this information addresses [redacted]'s concerns.Sincerely,Brian C.CEO

Brian Coester appraised a new construction home I had in H[redacted], M[redacted] in 2012. The report valued the home at $100,000 above its market value, had the wrong floor plan, interior pictures from other homes that he claimed were from mine, the wrong number of bedrooms and comps from over miles away in Charles County MD, and comps from high end neighborhoods. It ignored the two properties located next door to me that were listed for sale and were the same floor plans. Based on some of the comps he chose it was clear he never even visited the properties but took pictures from online.
I informed Mr. Coester about the errors and he defended his work so I filed a complaint with the Maryland Real Estate Appraisal Board. It took them about a year to get an inspector assigned but they agreed with me that he had violated numerous appraisal codes. In 2013 the Appraisal Board ordered him to complete a 30-hour Basic Appraisal Principles Course and a 30-hour Basic Appraisal Principles Course and to pay about $7,500 in civil fines. Proof of disciplinary action is located at http://www.dllr.state.md.us/license/reahi/reahidisc.shtml#2013
Unfortunately this was not the first time that he had performed such shoddy work because he was fined in Virginia at least 2 years before for similar actions. Buyer beware.

I had an accepted offer to purchase a condo unit in Y[redacted], NY in early July. I was not yet in contract. An appraiser from Coester called me asking for access to the apartment. I gave him the telephone number of my realtor but also told him specifically not to do the appraisal because I was Not yet in contract.
2 days later, he submitted his report with an appraised price matching my accepted offer. I was upset that I was informed about this because I had specifically asked to be present during the appraisal process.
I called my realtor and it turns out that the appraiser called him when he was standing outside the building, expecting instant access. He never made an appointment with him to get into the building never mind the apartment. But what made me really angry and uncomfortable was when I read the report, it became clear to me that
1)he did not enter the building
2)he did not enter the apartment unit
3)he made his report using stock pictures copied from the internet of the WRONG apartment.
4)there were a few sales that took place in the same building but he did not use them, using instead, apartments that were not comparable and far away.
My complaints were ignored and when I filed a dispute about the charges, were told that I was wrong to not pay for services rendered. Nobody seems to care about the integrity of the report--only that the appraised value came back at exactly the amount accept.