A reviewer who develops an opinion of value as part of a review assignment must:
Correct Answer
C) Comply with the development standards for that opinion
Why this is correct: If a reviewer develops their own opinion of value (not just reviewing another's), they must comply with the applicable development standards (Standard 1 for real property) for that opinion. The reviewer cannot rely on the original appraiser's work without meeting the same development requirements. Why the other choices are wrong: 'Limit the opinion to the range in the original report' is wrong because the reviewer's independent value opinion is not constrained by the original report's range. 'Adopt the original appraiser's scope of work' is wrong because the reviewer must determine their own appropriate scope of work for the value opinion. 'Obtain the original appraiser's consent first' is wrong because consent is not required by USPAP. Exam tip: A review that includes a value opinion is essentially two assignments: a review and an appraisal. Both sets of standards apply.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option C states the rule: the reviewer must comply with the development standards applicable to the opinion being developed. That is what converts the number from a comment on someone else's work into the reviewer's own supportable conclusion. It also explains the practical burden, since the reviewer must determine an appropriate scope and perform the analysis rather than borrowing it. The review conclusion and the value conclusion each stand on their own foundation.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Limit the opinion to the range in the original report
Constraining the reviewer's opinion to the original report's range would subordinate an independent conclusion to the very work being evaluated, which defeats the purpose of developing one. If the reviewer's analysis leads outside that range, the conclusion should reflect the analysis and explain the reasoning. A ceiling and floor imposed by the reviewed report would make the second opinion meaningless.
Option B: Adopt the original appraiser's scope of work
Scope of work must be determined by the reviewer for the reviewer's own assignment, based on what is necessary to produce credible results for the intended use. The original appraiser's scope was chosen for a different client, a possibly different intended use, and perhaps a different effective date. Adopting it wholesale substitutes another appraiser's judgment for a judgment the reviewer is required to make.
Option D: Obtain the original appraiser's consent first
Nothing in USPAP conditions a reviewer's work on the original appraiser's permission, and requiring consent would let the party being reviewed veto the review. The original appraiser has no standing to approve or block either the review or an independent value opinion. Professional courtesy is sometimes extended in practice, but it is not a standards requirement.
Two Hats, Two Rulebooks
A reviewer who states a value is wearing two hats and must carry two rulebooks. The review rules govern the opinion about the work; the appraisal development rules govern the opinion about the property. You cannot wear the second hat and borrow the first appraiser's homework.
How to use: Ask whether the reviewer produced only an opinion about the work or also an opinion about value. If value appears, the full development requirements attach to it. Reject options that cap the opinion, import the original scope, or require anyone's consent.
Exam Tip
A review that concludes a value is effectively two assignments in one; expect exam items to test whether you know both sets of obligations apply simultaneously.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Stating a value opinion built entirely on the reviewed report's unverified data
- -Adopting the original appraiser's scope of work instead of determining one
- -Reporting a reviewer's value without the support the development standards require
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests what happens when a review assignment expands to include the reviewer's own value conclusion. Reviewing someone else's work and developing an opinion of value are different services with different obligations, and doing both in one engagement means satisfying both sets of requirements rather than blending them. When a reviewer develops an opinion of real property value, the development standards that govern any appraisal apply to that opinion, which means identifying the assignment elements, determining an appropriate scope of work, analyzing the relevant market data, applying the approaches necessary for credible results, and reconciling to a conclusion. The reviewer cannot simply adopt the original appraiser's analysis and call the resulting number an independent opinion, because responsibility for a value opinion cannot be delegated to the work being reviewed. The reviewer may certainly use data from the report under review, just as any appraiser may use data from any source, but the reviewer must verify it to the extent the assignment requires and must take responsibility for the analysis built on it. The corresponding reporting requirements then apply to communicating that opinion.
Background Knowledge
You need to know that appraisal review has its own development and reporting requirements, and that when the reviewer develops an opinion of value the requirements governing development and reporting of that value opinion apply as well. You should also know that scope of work is always the appraiser's determination, judged by sufficiency for credible results, and that using another appraiser's data does not transfer responsibility for the analysis.
Real-World Application
Engaged to review and, if the value is not supported, to state an opinion of value, a reviewer finds the comparables poorly matched. The reviewer researches the market independently, selects four different sales, verifies each with a party to the transaction, develops a conclusion, and reports the review findings and the value opinion with separate support for each.
More USPAP Questions
Which statement best defines a hypothetical condition under USPAP?
According to the Competency Rule, if an appraiser lacks the knowledge and experience to complete an assignment competently, which action is NOT acceptable?
An appraiser runs only the sales comparison approach on a standard tract home and omits the cost and income approaches. Under Standard 1 this is:
A value opinion for a subdivision as if fully built out two years from now is what kind of assignment, and what does it require?
A hypothetical condition differs from an extraordinary assumption in that a hypothetical condition:
An appraiser must disclose in the certification whether they have:
A client-imposed requirement — 'use only comps from our approved list' — is best described as:
Under Standard 1, when developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must:
The certification required by Standards Rule 2-3 must be signed by:
According to Standard 1, when developing an opinion of market value, an appraiser must analyze:
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam