Discussion in 'General Appraisal Discussion' started by Scott R Marshall, Apr 26, 2012.
I was hoping Denis would come by and make sense of what I was saying :laugh:
Fine you win, Mr Rude. Despite the title, the language of your post sounded like it was based on a situation you once encountered, since you were so specific about the 3 garage bay and lender instructions etc.
Hypothetically, can you answer any of your own questions?
I'll be Mr Rude if you'll be Ms Informed.
Too bad you couldn't have answered the question and maybe at least provided two examples, one with a garage door in place and one with it removed (both non permitted). You can discuss it hypothetically endlessly (and it has been discussed in hundreds of threads), but each time out, the appraiser will be looking at a different level of construction and change from original use.
Have a good weekend.
I think the lenders are more concerned with "can the dwelling be rebuilt 100% to its current footprint?" They are just trying to make the subject fit the program. I don't agree with it. But, I think that is what is going on.
Geez why not discuss the theory instead of being all ******y about how you want the thread to go or how you wish the OP had been stated.
IT IS THEORY ... live with it or find another thread to bother in. Frankly I think this has been one of the better discussions on the topic until some came in demanding specifics ... we all get the specifics its the theory which Denis addressed very well.
RSW .. I totally understand what you are saying, but this is the issue that has always perplexed me .... IF there is adequate insurance coverage then the lender is covered in case of the structures demise ... they are covered in my opinion.
To me its another silly lender requirement with no basis for being other than to limit lending, which if that is their intent fine ... I am just perplexed.
Denis's post was excellent, addresses the points with common sense, theory, and practical application covered, well put!
I totally understand what you are saying, but this is the issue that has always perplexed me .... IF there is adequate insurance coverage then the lender is covered in case of the structures demise ... they are covered in my opinion.
From a lender point of view, the issue of concern might be, that even though there is an insurance policy on the home, if the policy has a clause that denies payout if the owner makes changes to the home that are non permited or not to code involving electrical, for example, and then the house burns down, the insurance claim might be deined.
Even though the market sees value in the non permited addition with the non permited electicral wiring, it is of concern to the lender.
It's the lender's money, and they can make whatever rules they want. Nobody is forcing a homeowner to borrow against their house.
The appraiser is the one who is vulnerable in these situations, because yes, the market is seeing value in the non permited addition, and the appraiser is reporting on value, but on the other hand, the client does have a concern about non permited additions and safety or zoning issues.
Should the appraiser follow the market, or his clients's needs, if the client need is contrary to market value evidence? Is there a way to satisfy both?
Imo, these issues can put appraisers in vulnerable positions.
Just want to double check and make sure we're not talking about Clearbox now...