Colorado § 12-10-616 - Unlawful acts - penalties.

§ 12-10-616. Unlawful acts - penalties.

(1) It is unlawful for a person to:

(a) Violate section 12-10-613 (1)(c), (1)(e), or (1)(f) or perform a real estate appraisal without first having obtained a license or certificate from the board pursuant to this part 6;

(b) Accept a fee for an independent appraisal assignment that is contingent upon:

(I) Reporting a predetermined analysis, opinion, or conclusion; or

(II) The analysis, opinion, or conclusion reached; or

(III) The consequences resulting from the analysis, opinion, or conclusion;

(c) Misrepresent a consulting service as an independent appraisal; or

(d) Fail to disclose, in connection with a consulting service for which a contingent fee is or will be paid, the fact that a contingent fee is or will be paid.

(2) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (1) of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501. Any person who subsequently violates any provision of subsection (1) of this section within five years after the date of a conviction for a violation of subsection (1) of this section commits a class 5 felony and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-401.

Source: L. 2019: Entire title R&RE with relocations, (HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 682, § 1, effective October 1. L. 2021: (2) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3153, § 136, effective March 1, 2022.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 12-61-716 as it existed prior to 2019.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Appraiser cannot present expert testimony in a property valuation proceeding under a contingent fee arrangement. City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997).

A contingent fee is prohibited in all property valuation proceedings including proceedings that do not involve a federal transaction. City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997).

A contingent fee is prohibited even if the individual appraiser testifying as an expert witness is a salaried employee of a party to a contingent fee agreement who did not personally execute the contingent fee agreement and would not receive fees from the agreement. This avoids the absurd result of allowing firms that employ appraisers to accept contingent fees while prohibiting individual appraisers from doing so. City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997).

Proper remedy where an appraiser improperly gives expert testimony pursuant to a contingent fee agreement in a property valuation proceeding before the board of assessment appeals is a remand for de novo proceedings. City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 947 P.2d 1373 (Colo. 1997).

Notwithstanding a contingent fee arrangement, the board of assessment appeals properly admitted documentary evidence and testimony presented by taxpayer's expert witness as a consulting service. Such evidence was admissible in board of assessment appeals hearings if there has been proper disclosure of the contingent fee arrangement and the nature of the appraiser's work. FirstBank Longmont v. Boulder County Bd. of Equaliz., 990 P.2d 1109 (Colo. App. 1999).