U/W stips

[Don Clark]

If you had put the (required) statement that the subject property meets the FHA Minimum Property Standards, you would likely have never got this stip.

 

[StephHigdem]

If I could hijack for a moment...
I did a CIR, noted all the deficiencies & that all was now fixed & stated on the CIR that the subject meets FHA MPG's. I'm being stipped to add the the "Dwelling meets HUD's Minimum Property Standards for existing dwellings as outlined in HUD Handbooks 4105.2 and 4905.1" statement in the report itself.
Am I being stubborn on this one? I'm happy to change the wording on the CIR, but I can't see any reason to put it in the report. Granted, I could change the signature date, put the statement on page 3 & note it was at the undewriters request.... Thanks for the input.

 

[RSW]

If I could hijack for a moment...
I did a CIR, noted all the deficiencies & that all was now fixed & stated on the CIR that the subject meets FHA MPG's. I'm being stipped to add the the "Dwelling meets HUD's Minimum Property Standards for existing dwellings as outlined in HUD Handbooks 4105.2 and 4905.1" statement in the report itself.
Am I being stubborn on this one? I'm happy to change the wording on the CIR, but I can't see any reason to put it in the report. Granted, I could change the signature date, put the statement on page 3 & note it was at the undewriters request.... Thanks for the input.

The statement should have been in the report to begin with. You need to make the changes and sent it in.

 

[CANative]

Minimum Property Standards are for new construction or additions to certain types of existing property.

The statement for an existing property should be Minimum Property Requirements. In assignments which have a condition for repairs I modify the statemernt to read: Upon completion of the listed required repairs/inspections the subject property will meet minimum property requirements.

 

[StephHigdem]

That's my point, the statement was in the CIR (it wasn't in the report, because the property did NOT meet MPGs.) It's the placement in the report, rather than the CIR that I am questioning.

 

[CANative]

The statement has to be in the report. The statement does not need to be in the CIR because the report is predicated on the repair condition being completed. The CIR certifies that the conditions have been met.

 

[StephHigdem]

OK, so even if we have a CIR, we have to go back & change the report?
If so, do we just change the signature date & add the statement?
Or do we go back and change it to "as is"?
This is making no real sense to me... if I'm being thick, please feel free to let me know.

 

[CANative]

You've been given an opportunity to correct your report before FHA sees it. The statement MUST be in the report. If the property has a deficiency that makes it not meet MPR's then you make a condition for correction of the deficiency. In that case the appraisal is based on the hypothetical condition that the condition causing the property to fail MPRs has been corrected. Therefore the property (hypothetically) meets MPRs.

 

[RSW]

That's my point, the statement was in the CIR (it wasn't in the report, because the property did NOT meet MPGs.) It's the placement in the report, rather than the CIR that I am questioning.

You should have made the statement that the subject will meet HUD/FHA MPRs after the required repairs are completed or somethng to that effect.

I use the following comment in all of my FHA appraisals if it is not a new construction:

The subject property currently meets FHA minimum standards or will meet FHA minimum standards upon completion of the identified repair items.

 

[Mr Rex]

Just a side thought, that specific language is a requirement on USDA reports.