Real Estate Appraisal Forum

appraisersforum.com logo
The Premiere Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
 Fastest Way to Find a Real Estate Appraiser Enter Zip Code:
 
 
Go Back   Appraisers Forum > Real Estate Appraisal Forums > Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USPAP
Register Help Our Rules Calendar Archives Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-30-2007, 08:59 AM
Susan Klimaszewski's Avatar
Susan Klimaszewski Susan Klimaszewski is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Texas
State: Texas
Professional Status: Licensed Appraiser
Posts: 395
Default REO, Cost To Cure, Checkbox 4

We are having a disagreement in our office over what is the proper procedure when using checkbox 4.

Background: REO duplex, 48 years old, possible mold, however we are not mold experts, severe wood destroying insect damage and Add-on has "slab foundation" that tapers out over the grass to about 1 inch and you can't see any other part of it. For all we know it is only 1 inch thick! And 100 other various "this thing is falling down around my head" problems.

One of us says that when you give a cost to cure and you use checkbox 4, you dislose everything you see, but only price out the things that you can such as a price to replace the moldy/damaged sheetrock, tape and paint. A cost to replace eaten up wood then paint etc. HOWEVER, since check box 4 is based on the assumption that the condition or defiency needs no repair you do not adjust for the underlaying issue since you are requiring an inspection and you do not give a price to address the underlaying issue such as the mold or termites. It would then be prudent to reserve the right to adjust your final opinion of value based on the outcome of the required inspections. This opinion would seem to be reinforced by the assumptions and limiting conditions #5.

Others here in the office say that when you give a cost to cure, you give a cost to cure for all of it regardless of if you used checkbox 4. That you should be enough of a professional to address the underlaying cause of the visible defects. This group says that checkbox 4 means that after you have adjusted for everything it a assumed that nothing else will be found and nothing other than what you adjusted for and gave a cost to cure for needs correcting. Example, you would give a price determine the source of the water leading to the mold, a price to remediate the mold and then a price to repair the mold damaged items.

Anyone have an opinion?
Sponsored Links

  #2  
Old 07-30-2007, 10:14 AM
Deuce of Spades's Avatar
Deuce of Spades Deuce of Spades is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Central
State: Florida
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 932
Default

I am not an REO expert, but here is my opinion and hope that others will chime in.
It is my understanding that REOs are always 'as is' but you must CYA yourself in the addenda regarding inspections needed. Also, only make cost to cure to items obvious to the eye, covering yourself with verbage about unknown defects, additional unknown issues and the need for inspections and professional estimates that would require further review and possible change of conclusions on the appraisal.
  #3  
Old 07-30-2007, 10:56 AM
Rice Brewer's Avatar
Rice Brewer Rice Brewer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fayetteville & Fort Smith, AR
State: Arkansas
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 854
Default

While I agree with the original post that CB4 SHOULD be part of the assignment results in such cases, Deuce is 100% correct.
  #4  
Old 07-30-2007, 12:18 PM
Webbed Feet's Avatar
Webbed Feet Webbed Feet is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: City of Free Speech
State: Other Non-US
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 12,152
Default

Ms. Klimaszewski,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan Klimaszewski View Post
We are having a disagreement in our office over what is the proper procedure when using checkbox 4.<snip>

One of us says that when you give a cost to cure and you use checkbox 4, you dislose everything you see, but only price out the things that you can such as a price to replace the moldy/damaged sheetrock, tape and paint. A cost to replace eaten up wood then paint etc. HOWEVER, since check box 4 is based on the assumption that the condition or defiency needs no repair you do not adjust for the underlaying issue since you are requiring an inspection and you do not give a price to address the underlaying issue such as the mold or termites. It would then be prudent to reserve the right to adjust your final opinion of value based on the outcome of the required inspections. This opinion would seem to be reinforced by the assumptions and limiting conditions #5.
I feel using replacing moldy sheetrock for an example is a bad one. Because with mold you almost always have hidden damage. The "cost to cure" is implying the issue is solved and it's misleading in my opinion to be doing that when serious hidden damage is almost 100% for sure. All you accomplish is a B.S. cost to cure with a resulting value that has no meaning whatsoever. This is just clients improperly demanding appraisers proceed when inspections really need to be done first and repair bids obtained. That said, what is in blue above is correct. What I changed to brown is to ask a question of you. What is the point of reserving a right to change your opinion of value when the very meaning of an Extraordinary Assumption is the value may be altered if the assumption is found later to be false? Reserving such a right is not needed, it is already reserved by the very definition of an EA. Doing so is merely redundant.

Quote:
Others here in the office say that when you give a cost to cure, you give a cost to cure for all of it regardless of if you used checkbox 4. That you should be enough of a professional to address the underlaying cause of the visible defects. This group says that checkbox 4 means that after you have adjusted for everything it a assumed that nothing else will be found and nothing other than what you adjusted for and gave a cost to cure for needs correcting. Example, you would give a price determine the source of the water leading to the mold, a price to remediate the mold and then a price to repair the mold damaged items.

Anyone have an opinion?
In blue above only makes sense if two values are being provided, a so-called "As-Is" value based on a "cost to cure", and the "Subject To" value based on the EA. Think this one over. IF an EA is used, the meaning of an EA is the appraiser does NOT know the full extent of damage or the true situation without outside professional inspections. The Appraiser doing this has just created a sweeping contradiction. They provided an "As-Is" value as if they 100% knew everything, and then opined under an EA as if they did not. .. Pretty fricking stupid if you ask me. One may be able to make sense out of that using both CB3 and CB4 for different items only. But as I am not a fan of "cost to cure" because it fails to represent market reaction and only represents "costs" instead, I feel one should still tread very carefully doing so.

The line in red. You can tell this person that some people have called Webbed arrogant, but they are surpassing me in all regards on that front. Damn few appraisers are qualified construction experts and have Xray vision to boot. Even the very best and most experienced home inspectors (and I am talking about one I know that is an architect also) would NEVER estimate costs of repairs prior to opening the walls up when they see mold and know there is a water leak. I have seen photos of when the only sign of any issue at all was a three inch by three inch mold spot on the interior of the sheetrock that it ended up the verticle studs five to ten feet in two directions were 90% rotted out.

I dispute that CB4 means that all by itself unless you frame an EA statement that is clear about what you are doing. The ONLY thing any appraiser can "cost to cure" in such a situation is cosmetic damage only. And that is not market reaction unless it is estimated and included. Beyond that, later .. like in court, it could easily be shown the appraiser did not know their ass from a hole in the ground when guessing at hidden damage. What I placed in green, without invasive inspections, without third party repair bids, would just be some appraiser full of themselves making wild ass guesses. "Professional" is not what comes to mind.

Webbed.

Last edited by Webbed Feet : 07-30-2007 at 12:24 PM.
  #5  
Old 07-30-2007, 12:57 PM
JSmith43's Avatar
JSmith43 JSmith43 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2003
State: California
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 16,054
Default

Mr Feet,

That was a very good synopsis. Of course, it should have been edited by Ms Manners, from the Dale Carnigie Institute, but that goes without saying

You are even right about the following:
Quote:
You can tell this person that some people have called Webbed arrogant, but they are surpassing me in all regards on that front. Damn few appraisers are qualified construction experts and have Xray vision to boot.
IMO, the merit of being right and on point outweighs the communication factors. Anyhow, I believe the style is merely a skit you are working on in hopes of becoming known as the Don Rickles of master appraisers.

It would be foolhardy to opine a mold remediation cost since writing the specs before the forensics would be a bit of a challenge Just resist the request for all but cosmetic repairs or complete tear downs....even then, there just might be hazardous material removal costs, etc.

Last edited by JSmith43 : 07-30-2007 at 01:00 PM.
  #6  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:27 PM
Ross (CO) Ross (CO) is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
State: Colorado
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 4,154
Default

Cost to cure.....beyond normal cosmetic aspects accruing over a span of time with poor to no maintenance or typical scheduled updating....is all too often garbled and confused. It inherently implies that it becomes the duty of the appraiser to encompass ALL that is not new, or perfect, or specifically appealing about a property......and make it all better.....in a wonderful "what if" kind of way. Excuse me, Mr. Client, do you want an average cure, a good cure.....or will you be investing in an excellent cure ? For the sake of unloading an REO property I bet they suggest a "Fair" cure as being adequate. What are the defined limitations there ? What is the "budget" that you are being awarded in making the preferred cures to the property ? Is your client defining ANY of that sort of thing with you at the start of the assignment, reconciling your time to do all that within the equally-discussed S.o.W. ?......and paying a fee to compliment all of your efforts ?

As is.....in the context of providing a judgment and experiential opinion of CURRENT market value probably gives that client more immediate peace-of-mind than dragging everybody through the briarpatch on attempts to project aspects of future work and activity about a property which are NEVER going to happen, anyway ! For those of you who really DO serve the REO marketplace in a big way.....would you care to share how many of your clients actually TAKE your cost-to-cure numbers to heart...and actually DO make those ailments become "cured" before they sell their accumulated property to that savior willing to take it off their hands, and off their books ?

Present the listed items and surely prioritize that list with most-impacting at the top and progressing toward those minimally-impacting at the end. Include a similar set of photos which will show your client what those "biggies" are, use CB4, and offer to assist with further help if that client truly wants the names of local rehab-remodel-remediation contractors who could help this client......if they REALLY feel that they want to CURE some of those problems ! (Truth probably is they do not want to cure any of those things !) Until then, as-is means....as is, and don't tie that proverbial anchor-chain around your foot for the sake of being too noble.
  #7  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:34 PM
Greg Bell's Avatar
Greg Bell Greg Bell is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
State: Louisiana
Professional Status: Gvmt Agency, FNMA, HUD, VA etc.
Posts: 3,023
Default

Bank REO'S I usually include paint and some cosmetic repairs to bring subject
up to marketability.HUD and VA REO'S however just the bare minimum for habitability.So the bleached swastika on the front room carpet is cosmetic and is not called for repar...
  #8  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:51 PM
Don Clark's Avatar
Don Clark Don Clark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
State: Virginia
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 8,832
Cool My opinion

One of the reasons that lenders are finding alternatives to an appraisal is, in my opinion, that appraisers are becoming downright lazy.

1. We don't want to do a cost approach even if the client wants or needs one.

2. We will not take the time to learn, or even inquire as to whether or not we can or should do a cost to cure although appriasers forming an opinion of a cost to cure have been part of appraisal practice since the beginning.

3. We assume that we know the value of a property "as is" even tho that would require some competence in first knowing how to estimate the cost to cure, and then subtracting the cost to cure from an opinion of market value to then form an opinion of an as is value.

I see weeping and wailing, moaning and lot's of "Oh me, what shall" I do, I have no business" on this forum every day. Well, if you do nothing you earn nothing.

I have always provided my client with a cost to cure for items that pose a problem or need repair if they affect

Safety, Soundness, or Sanitary Conditions

Unless and until appraisers start being appraisers again, and not just form fillers, you will all continue to lose business, and respect.

If you do not have the expertise to do a cost to cure, do not do REO appraisals. It is that simple.
__________________
AQB Certified USPAP Instructor,Member VaCAP,NCPAC, Expert Witness, Consultant/Peer Assistance
  #9  
Old 07-30-2007, 03:02 PM
Peter LeQuire's Avatar
Peter LeQuire Peter LeQuire is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A long way from Nutbush
State: Tennessee
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 5,539
Default

I agree that Mr. Webberster is correct. However, I live in a simpler universe. If there are substantial repairs, evidence of that colored substance we refuse to call mold, evidence of structural deficiencies, or any other complex condition items to deal with, I will typically retreat from developing an "as is" value: there are simply too many issues to try to retreat for protection to an extraordinary assumption. While the universe of appraisal-orderers doesn't want to hear it, at some point I think I have to draw the line about what I do and don't do.

It's more sensible to me to do an "as repaired" value, CB 3 being indicated, with as much CYA language as prudent about inspections, repairs, absence of harmful conditions, structural soundness, etc.
__________________
Incumbent - A person of the liveliest interest to the outcumbants. A. Bierce
  #10  
Old 07-30-2007, 03:34 PM
JSmith43's Avatar
JSmith43 JSmith43 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2003
State: California
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 16,054
Default

Don,

You hit on lots of good points, but I think there are multiple factors behind some of the behavior noted.

For instance, the rewrite of Fannie forms and the word smith job on the certifications and limiting conditions put appraisers in an unprecedented box.

Those not up to the task of scoping and clarifying their way out of it (as if that were 100% possible), are simply punting as a business decision, when they run up against things like the Cost Approach being demanded (secretly) for insurance purposes....or just because they fear someone somewhere looking at the report hadn't read the Fannie memo & actually might think it is a necessary approach, even though bountiful direct sales comparisons are available.

Dirty Harry said a man's gotta know his limitations. I think he was talking about REO appraisers attempting to estimate mold cures, with or without invasive testing. There is nothing I'd rather do than crank out a few pages critiquing the '80's installation of Dryvit or some other EIFS product & propose a cure. But no one is likely to pay me $1,500 for the report & they will have none of this "self taught" stuff. Public school, University, and/or Trade Union education only, I guess.

So Don, I agree with your general premise that the value added proposition of appraisal reports is waning. You are probably doing what you can to continue to give good advice to your customers and don't hold back on cost to cure estimates. You've got the experience, knowledge, and apparently, you are fearless
Sponsored Links

Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
     Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com

Fastest Way to Find a Real Estate Appraiser Enter Zip Code:
Partner Sites:
AppraiserUSA.com - National Appraiser Directory AllDomainsUSA.com - Domain Name Registration
DeadbeatListings.com - Deadbeat ListingsAppraiserSites.com - Web Hosting for the Professional Real Estate Appraiser
Find FHA Appraisers - FHA Appraiser Search Commercial Appraisers - Commercial Appraiser Search
Relocation Appraisal - Find Relocation Appraisers Domain Reseller - Business Opportunity
Home Security Buzz - Home Security Info Radon Testing - Radon Gas Info
My Medicare Forum - Medicare Info Stop Smoking Help - Help Quitting Smoking
CordlessPhoneStore.com - Great Cordless Phones AndroidTabletCity.com - Android Tablet Computers

Follow AppraisersForum.com:          Find us on Facebook            Follow us on Twitter


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 PM.

SiteMap: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93