"Old" 2005 form

[Marcia Langley]

In an separate thread, the appraisal was required for a property settlement in a marital dissolution. If I remember, the effective date was 1995. The 9/96 2055 form is okay?

The first consideration is that the 2005 version of the 2055 or the 1004 is not OK for anything other than a mortgage appraisal.

The next consideration is that the old 2055 and the old 1004 also are labeled for mortgage work but at least you can "SOW" them for other uses. Many of us would not do that but prefer to use a generic form or a narrative for all non-mortgage work. I like the AI Report forms.

If you choose to use the old 2055 and SOW-away the mortgage purpose then there is nothing left to worry about. That form has the flexibility to be customized through proper SOW, HCs, and EAs to fit the assignment.

I disagree with Property that retroactive appraisals should be reported on retroactive forms. The current USPAP must be adhered to and any form you use must have the flexibility to conform to USPAP.

The benifit of generic forms is that you do not have to scope-away pre-printed information. You can build your SOW from scratch and make it fit exactly the needs of the assignment.

 

[Ken B]

Okay, so that I don't come across as anymore of a smarta** than I already do, my issue with the advice to use the "old" 2055 form for ANYTHING deals with both both Certification #9 of the old form and the statement between the property address block and the form title on page 1 of the form.

I don't think this form is applicable to anything for these reasons.

Differing opinions?

 

[hastalavista]

I understand you have to meet current USPAP Denis .. but if your date of valuation is retrospective why would you not use the forms available then? THe purpose is to provide a value as IF you had done it on that day. Had you done in on that day you would have used the forms available then.

The form is just the vehicle to communicate the results.
The purpose is to provide an opinion of market value as of some date in the past.
The intended use is to use that past value for some present need.
Does it matter what form should be used? Only if the form has langauge that contradicts something in USPAP or in the SOW/development process.

Also .. if you provide a retrospective valuation .. do you use City data from the time period or do you put in current data.

I use the data that would be contemporaneously available as of the effective date. However, I've seen it argued on the forum (convincingly) that data after-the-fact can also be used. One way I would feel comfortable doing so is if I had contemporaneous data that supported a value, and then I had post-effective data that is supplemental support.

In an extreme case, what if there was no data available? Then I suppose one way to determine a retrospective value would be to use post-effective date data and work backward; I haven't been in the position where I've had to do this.

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

IMO, if the appraisal is not for a mortgage loan, do not use any of the fannie forms.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

The first consideration is that the 2005 version of the 2055 or the 1004 is not OK for anything other than a mortgage appraisal.

The next consideration is that the old 2055 and the old 1004 also are labeled for mortgage work but at least you can "SOW" them for other uses. Many of us would not do that but prefer to use a generic form or a narrative for all non-mortgage work. I like the AI Report forms.

If you choose to use the old 2055 and SOW-away the mortgage purpose then there is nothing left to worry about. That form has the flexibility to be customized through proper SOW, HCs, and EAs to fit the assignment.

I disagree with Property that retroactive appraisals should be reported on retroactive forms. The current USPAP must be adhered to and any form you use must have the flexibility to conform to USPAP.

The benifit of generic forms is that you do not have to scope-away pre-printed information. You can build your SOW from scratch and make it fit exactly the needs of the assignment.

Marcia .. I agree with your statement .. my preference would be to put them on the form available as of the effective date of valuation just as though I had done it then.
The true practical matter is Im more probable to do a narrative report than a form report for retrospective analysis because I like to explain lots of things. Again that is a business decision. Its just the decision I make thats all.
And I agree with you no matter what your date of valuation .. the date of assignment determines which USPAP you must adhere to.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

IMO, if the appraisal is not for a mortgage loan, do not use any of the fannie forms.

The other forms are a very new invention ... historically your statement wouldnt have been true Pam ... I feel very comfortable using FNMA forms as they are the Industry Standard and honestly most easily explained.

 

[Charles Knutson]

I've used the AI Summary Report several times -- both it and the AI Restricted Use Report have checkboxes for interior, exterior, or no inspection.

For the retrospective divorce assignment, inspection is almost irrelevant -- maybe the AI Restricted Use would be the best form.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Okay, so that I don't come across as anymore of a smarta** than I already do, my issue with the advice to use the "old" 2055 form for ANYTHING deals with both both Certification #9 of the old form and the statement between the property address block and the form title on page 1 of the form.

I don't think this form is applicable to anything for these reasons.

Differing opinions?

Kenneth,

I take it you are referring the the use of the outdated term "limited" in cert 9 and the use of the phrase "mortgage" near the title.

I agree on both counts that this would make the form very awkward for anything other than mortgage work and I also dislike the use of the term "limited".

I am flexible with what my clients ask for as long as I can feel sure by my own standards that I have complied with USPAP. I would use the old 2055 for mortgage work that did not have to comply with Fannie.

The "limited" term in cert 9 can be scoped away with an explanation that it no longer carries a USPAP meaning. The ASB has said in publications that there is no violation in using that term but it no longer has a USPAP meaning, only a common English meaning.

I would not use the form for non-mortgage work.

---------------

On the flip side, I would happily do narratives or use generic forms for every job including those for Fannie-conforming mortgages.

More than happy, I have a strong preference to do so.

Unfortuately my clients must be able to sell those loans to Fannie and would not accept anything less than the new form.

Just as I am willing to bow to the need for the new 1004, I am also willing to bow to the need for the old 2055.

I am not, however, willing to bow to the need for the new 2055 due to the pre-printed contradictions and prohibitions againts alterations.

---------

Another thing about the flexibility of the old 2055 is that you can use the form part and replace the cert part with your own certs. That would eliminate the need to explain away the reference to "limited" in cert 9.

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

I did narratives prior to the availability of the general purpose forms. I have not and will not use the AI form.

 

[hastalavista]

I did narratives prior to the availability of the general purpose forms. I have not and will not use the AI form.

Just curious: Personal or professional reasons?
I use it and find it pretty good.
I don't have ACI (yet), otherwise I'd also try their GP form.