Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appraisal Licensing Amc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appraiser groups seek technical fixes to appraisal-management law and mandatory licensing for appraisers
Summary
The Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Appraisers and industry groups asked the committee to advance technical fixes to the 2019 appraisal management statute and to consider a bill to require mandatory licensing of appraisers for consumer protection.
Two related appraisal items drew testimony at the Joint Committee hearing: a technical-fix bill to the 2019 appraisal-management company law and a separate bill to require that appraisals be performed only by licensed appraisers.
Steve Souza, representing the Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Appraisers Association (MBREA), supported House Bill 468, which he said would clarify definitions in the 2019 law, remove an impractical fingerprinting requirement, authorize the Division of Occupational Licensing to handle certain federal fees under Dodd-Frank and clean up redundant language to aid implementation without reducing the division's authority.
"This bill clarifies some definitions. It removes an impractical fingerprinting requirement... and cleans up redundant language all without reducing the authority of the division of professional occupational licensing," Souza said.
Alan Cohen of the Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Appraisers told the committee that, to date, appraisals in Massachusetts can be performed by unlicensed individuals despite the existence of a registration board. He urged adoption of S.196 to make licensing mandatory, arguing that home valuations affect owners' largest asset and should be done by licensed professionals.
"Home is generally someone's most important asset. When they're getting advice on the value... They should have an appraisal done by a licensed professional," Cohen said.
Supporters asked the committee to act on the technical corrections and to consider mandatory license requirements to better protect consumers. The committee took no vote at the hearing.
