• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

sqft in 2055 exterior only

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose it would the same position they have when an appraiser has that dilemma with a comp :shrug:

Now how can Fannie's "position" on that be explained and my following question not immediately be asked?

Ok.. How about this one then. I was slow on your Lobo opinion... So you are confirming your Fannie source said additional EA's stuck in addendums, and not proven true or false via an inspection required by CB4, are prohibited as having caused a modified SOW on a 03/2005 form?

Webbed.
 
I was slow on your Lobo opinion... So you are confirming your Fannie source said additional EA's stuck in addendums

Correct. It is not acceptable to guess. Excuse me, I meant to say estimate :)

That was really the main thrust behind the 2055 revisions. Fannie wanted to make clear that guessing and/or assuming relevant physical characteristics was not allowed. These must be from a data source.

It is not acceptable to just assume that the condition is average.

On the other hand, it is acceptable to say that the condition is average based on data on a tax card, MLS listing, etc..
 
Webbed Footed One, As you are aware, this opinion goes to the use of the Fannie Mae forms for non-lending purposes, although some of the statements in the opinion apply to any use of the Fannie Mae forms. Regarding my points, I agree that the SOW cannot be limited or changed from that of the preprinted SOW (though it can certainly be expanded). However, nowhere on the form or in Fannie guidelines can I find any prohibition from the appraiser further explaining exactly what he and did not do under the SOW in the development and reporting of the appraisal. In fact, I believe that such an explanation is required under the USPAP Scope of Work rule:

For each appraisal, appraisal review, and appraisal consulting assignment, an appraiser must:
1...
2...
3. dosclose the scope of work in the report.

Regarding, the issue of using an extraordinary assumption in a Fannie Mae 2055 exterior only, the Fannie Mae form itself in the preprinted certifications part of the form bars addtional "assumptions", but not additional "extraordinary assumptions". These two terms have separate definitions in the USPAP definitions section and these 2 terms are listed separately under USPAP Standards Rule 2-1(c). Additionally, the Fannie Form itself provides a check box for the use of an extraordinary assumption right on the form....if you contend that the term "extraordinary assumption" is included in the meaning of the term "assumption" as used in the preprinted Fannie Mae certification pages, then checking this box and making the appraisal report subject to inspection...based upon an "extraordinary assumption" would be a violation of the Fannie preprinted certifications.....surely that cannot be the case and this demonstrates clearly that the preprinted language in the Fannie Mae form on this issue clearly does not contemplate barring the use of EA's....

Finally, I am sure that you agree that the only way to do a credible EA appraisal, without the appraiser actually measuring the subject property and comparable sales themselves, is for the appraiser to use an EA that the GLA figures that he uses in the report is substantially correct. (Obviosuly the appraiser must have a reasonable basis to believe that the source used for the GLA figures is accurate)

Since many if not most states incorporate USPAP into state law and Federal Banking regulations require that appraisals done for federally related mortgage transactions conform to USPAP, the Fannie preprinted language that states:
However, additional certifications that do not constitute material alterations to this appraisal report, such as those required by law.....are permitted.
would seem to allow the appraiser to disclose any EA's used in the appraisal.

Thus, I do not see anyway for the Oregon board or any other board to hang the appraiser over this issue unless the board is prepared to say that it is impossible to complete a USPAP compliant Exterior Only Appraisal on the current Fannie Mae Form 2055 unless the appraiser actually measures the subject property himself......boards can do whatever they chose, but I am pretty willing to take the risk that the boards rule over my practice are not going to do that.


So you are saying it is OK to check the "as-is" box, while also making it subject to an EA regarding condition, GLA, etc.

Sorry, no matter how hard you try to semantically manipulate the definition of "assumption" and how it is modified, as soon as you make EA's or use HC's on the 03/05 FNMA forms, it is no longer "as-is", it is subject to those things. You check the EA or HC box and explain. It can't be both "as-is" and "subject to".

You can't just toss in some trite, tautological boilerplate statement to cover your ***-ets.
 
Using GLA from Tax records or MLS data is not an Extraordinary Assumption, its an ordinary assumption. All the gobbly gook CYA is not needed. You relied on a source, sited your source adn based on the SOW of an Exterior Only (from the street) form report that is all thats necessary. Obviously if you notice the reported GLA is 1000sf and the observation from the street reveals an obvious discrepancy, then all bets are off. Appraisers use GLA from MLS or tax records daily for comparables and do not need to invoke a EA. Same thing with the subject on a 2055. If those data sources are not reasonably reliable, then you can not do the assignment from the street, and would need to measure the subject and comps on any assignment.
 
Using GLA from Tax records or MLS data is not an Extraordinary Assumption, its an ordinary assumption. All the gobbly gook CYA is not needed. You relied on a source, sited your source adn based on the SOW of an Exterior Only (from the street) form report that is all thats necessary. Obviously if you notice the reported GLA is 1000sf and the observation from the street reveals an obvious discrepancy, then all bets are off. Appraisers use GLA from MLS or tax records daily for comparables and do not need to invoke a EA. Same thing with the subject on a 2055. If those data sources are not reasonably reliable, then you can not do the assignment from the street, and would need to measure the subject and comps on any assignment.


Asolutely. It can get a little hairy when you're talking about condition, though.
 
So my situation is a pre-foreclosure driveby with no public record data and no MLS history. The lender cannot supply a previous appraisal. I have written instructions and a written confirmation to estimate it as best I can.

I have colleagues and competitors that do it all the time. I have lost a nice chunk of work because of my refusal to do the same thing. My creditors may not soon appreciate my reluctance to accept an otherwise routine assignment.

I don't see anything in the pre-printed conditions that would prohibit me from a statement about the dubious source of the GLA, and a long disclaimer about how this is not going to be as accurate as a full 1004.
 
Its your license.:)
 
So my situation is a pre-foreclosure driveby with no public record data and no MLS history. The lender cannot supply a previous appraisal. I have written instructions and a written confirmation to estimate it as best I can.

I have colleagues and competitors that do it all the time. I have lost a nice chunk of work because of my refusal to do the same thing. My creditors may not soon appreciate my reluctance to accept an otherwise routine assignment.

I don't see anything in the pre-printed conditions that would prohibit me from a statement about the dubious source of the GLA, and a long disclaimer about how this is not going to be as accurate as a full 1004.


Other than maybe you certify that "I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other parties and expressed in this appraisal report from reliable sources I believe to be true and correct."

What then..oh, but I didn't really mean that. Either you believe you sources to be true and correct or you don't. Again, we can't have it both ways.
 
I bet Lobo is hearing that "all the other appraisers do it", but yet they need you to do it:unsure::shrug:
 
So you are saying it is OK to check the "as-is" box, while also making it subject to an EA regarding condition, GLA, etc.

Sorry, no matter how hard you try to semantically manipulate the definition of "assumption" and how it is modified, as soon as you make EA's or use HC's on the 03/05 FNMA forms, it is no longer "as-is", it is subject to those things. You check the EA or HC box and explain. It can't be both "as-is" and "subject to".

You can't just toss in some trite, tautological boilerplate statement to cover your ***-ets.

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that if I have credible source of data regarding the GLA, interior condition, etc. and I rely on that data to perform the appraisal, then it is obvious that I am performing the appraisal using the assumption that that source of data is substantially correct (since I did not actually measure the property or view the inside of the property, I must be making that assumption in order to complete the appraisal). Let me make it very clear here that I am not talking about making a "guess" or an assumption that the subject property is average based on no credible source regarding the property's condtion. I am talkking about citing the public record as a source for the GLA and a listing or a prior appraisal report, etc. as the source for my condition rating of the property.

Mr. Wiley takes the position in post 68 that it is assumed in every assignment that the data sources used are correct. Preprinted cert #13 in the Fannie Form 2055 does state:

I obtained the information, estimates.............................expressed in this appraisal report from reliable sources that I believe to be true and correct

Now whether doing this is called an ordinary "assumption" or an "extraordinary assumption" (I tend to think it is an EA, as that term is defined by USPAP), then there is certainly is not a change or modification to the SOW or preprinted certifications by pointing out the obvious fact that if this assumption or extraordinary assumption turns out to be incorrect, then the appraiser's opinion of value is subject change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top