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 > Urgent - Help Needed
Register Help Our Rules Calendar Archives Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-24-2011, 07:56 PM
Scott R Marshall's Avatar
Scott R Marshall Scott R Marshall is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 2,473
Default Mix a building permit with a lawsuit with a missing C.O. and what do you get?

Okay here is the scenario. Borrower did an addition. The contractor decided to not finish the work. At the present time it appears the work is mostly cosmetic (final color coat on exterior stucco and some texturing/painting on a section of the interior ceiling). Borrower decides to sue the contractor in small claims court. As a result of this lawsuit the borrower has decided to not get the certificate of occupancy until he gets a judgement. This has been ongoing, per the borrower, since June of last year.

So is the report completed CB4, "subject to" issuance of the certificate of occupancy? While not my problem, I'm not sure how thrilled the owner will be when it is perceived I'm placing this requirement on him. Do I need to find out if the missing color coat and/or missing texture is a required condition for issuance of the C.O.? Is it "as-is" with a cost to cure, making mention of the situation and commit the form atrocity of making an extraordinary assumption that the C.O will be issued?

Sometimes I hate what the corner which the 1004 form boxes us into.
Sponsored Links

  #2  
Old 10-25-2011, 11:28 AM
Mile High Trout's Avatar
Mile High Trout Mile High Trout is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: -
State: Colorado
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 12,352
Post

Scott, perhaps you could base that decision on the local market response to such issues.

If the city county is not making a stir and making people take them down, and the property could be conveyed again with that real property being considered in the future even without a permit - perhaps subject to is fine.

If the climate is one where without the permit the city guy will come around pushing the homeowner around and providing stop work, forced to finish or demo orders or something like that, it may be better to put it on the homeowner.

A dispute between the homeowner and contractor has little to do with the appraiser, as I'm sure you're well aware. However, it's got everything to do with the homeowners choice of contractors, so it is on the homeowners shoulders.

Consult with lender, and have them provide you written guidance for how they want it. Could go either way from an appraisers perspective right?

I'd say that the job is not done until the homeowner is reported with the city, and the improvements recognized. Quality aside, this issue is about permitting primarily, if I understand it correctly.
__________________

  #3  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:27 PM
Scott R Marshall's Avatar
Scott R Marshall Scott R Marshall is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 2,473
Default

I'm assuming the building permit is in place pending confirmation from the local muni. I guess my real issue has more to do with issuance of a certificate of occupancy and/or finalizing of the building permit for the addition. Per the owner, the building permit is open and the borrower doesn't want to finalize it until his claim is settled. So do I, for all intents and purposes, force the owner to settle and get it finalized by completing the report "subject to" a C.O. or a final on the open permit? Seems the only route I can go as the alternative places the burden of responsibility on my shoulders assuming the final/C.O. will be issued, also forcing me to make a EA on a 1004 form which is not permitted.

I'm just trying to see if perhaps I'm missing something and it can be completed any other way than CB4 "subject to" finalizing the permit and/or issuance of the C.O.
  #4  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:41 PM
Denis DeSaix Denis DeSaix is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Northern California
State: California
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 14,767
Default

This is a good question.

Normally, I'd be inclined to complete the value as-is. The added dimension of the potential lawsuit adds a twist. In this case, the borrower has specifically expressed his/her desire not to complete the permitting process until the litigation is done. One would think that if it comes down to a choice between finishing the permit process (and final finish work on the addition) to protect the permit-approval in-place and to ensure the addition does not suffer adverse weathering effects vs. hanging on to make a point in the litigation, one would finish the permit/work. One would think that is the case, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Here is a suggestion: Contact your client and explain to them the situation. Tell them that were it not for the litigation issue, your default position would be to complete it as-is. However, with the litigation issue, the normal motivation to complete the permit work is no longer present, and the decision to finish the work is no longer based on normal market considerations but on a specific lawsuit consideration. As such, the prudent buyer would probably avoid purchasing the subject, as-is, and require that the permit process be finished so as not to become entangled in a lawsuit situation.
Therefore, the best choice is to appraise the property subject-to issuance of the permit. This does not change the lawsuit dynamic (the borrower can continue sue the contractor) but it removes the permit-process from being held as a negotiating chip in the lawsuit and removes a collateral value risk.

My guess is that the lender will agree.

Good luck!
  #5  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:51 PM
Howard Klahr's Avatar
Howard Klahr Howard Klahr is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Florida
State: Florida
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 2,457
Default

What is the intended use and who are the intended users of the appraisal?

The answer to these questions will direct you as to how to proceed.

Either way, you still need to understand what is necessary to obtain the CO.
  #6  
Old 10-26-2011, 07:53 AM
Mike Kennedy's Avatar
Mike Kennedy Mike Kennedy is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southern Hudson Valley
State: New York
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 27,999
Default

"This has been ongoing, per the borrower, since June of last year."

Had the "open" building permit expired as of the Effective Date of appraisal?
__________________
Kill the Contract Review Bull$eye - Now.
  #7  
Old 10-26-2011, 08:07 AM
Scott R Marshall's Avatar
Scott R Marshall Scott R Marshall is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 2,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Kennedy View Post
"This has been ongoing, per the borrower, since June of last year."

Had the "open" building permit expired as of the Effective Date of appraisal?
Mike,


I am in the process of finding it out through the local muni. This one works a bit slower than most and requires me to make the request in writing than wait for typically a minimum of business 3 days, sometimes longer. I'm on day 1 of the waiting period. Based on what the borrower has said, it is still an open permit and the local muni knows of the situation facing the borrower. The borrower has also said that he could get the final/C.O. at any time but has been holding off due to the lawsuit. All hearsay at this point but so far no reason to conclude that the borrower is not telling the truth.
  #8  
Old 10-26-2011, 03:42 PM
Scott R Marshall's Avatar
Scott R Marshall Scott R Marshall is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 2,473
Default

Okay, got more info. First off the permit was issued in August of 2010, not June. It is still an "open" permit, meaning the final inspection/approval has not yet occured. As originally stated, the work appears done with the exception of what I would say are cosmentic items, but of course this is only based on what I observed and I have no way of knowing whether it would receive final approval from the local muni.

So at this point I think I'll contact the client, make them aware of the situation, state that in its current situation/condition it could probably only be completed CB4 "subject to" the final approval of the addition by the local muni and see if they want to proceed.

Any differing opinions before I make the phone call tomorrow morning would be greatly appreciated.
  #9  
Old 10-26-2011, 09:02 PM
Lee in L.A.'s Avatar
Lee in L.A. Lee in L.A. is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles / Reseda, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 8,081
Default

Time to make the call already.
I might have done it sooner, not that it matters.
__________________
Reach out your hand, if your cup is empty.
if your cup is full, may it be again.
  #10  
Old 10-26-2011, 09:03 PM
PropertyEconomics's Avatar
PropertyEconomics PropertyEconomics is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Central New Mexico
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 18,855
Default

My guess is the owner is of the opinion if the property is inspected it will qualify for a CO which will harm their small claims case. Really its a game of chess that the owner is playing, and most probably with good cause. The unfortunate thing is that the appraiser is in the middle of it .... were the form not the form you could appraise under the hypothetical condition the CO was issued and do a cost to cure for the cosmetic issues present.

The problem is with the 1004 an appraiser cannot be an appraiser.
__________________
Foxtrot, Uniform, Charlie, Kilo Cancer ... In memory of our friend Bill Waite!
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 06:57 AM.

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