The "proper" use of the 1004D

[Webbed Feet]

M.B.

I think you missed my point. I don't "give" value to anything ever in my work. The market does that. I also cannot not give value, that is the market's jurisidiction again. I'm not there to reflect what I want, nor should any of us be doing that.

And I'll let you argue it out with my appraisal board that has already published for Oregon appraisers that if we go signing certifications that say one thing, and we then toss in addendum language that says completely the opposite.... that we can plan on the board finding us guilty of having produced a misleading appraisal or other type of report. So certainly, do whatever you want...

in California ........................

I am personally not going to sign a certification that says my appraisal report had something in it that it did not. And maybe the problems many of the rest of us have are due to appraisers that ARE signing certifications that say things that are not true to the facts, combined with lending clients that expect them to.

 

[MN Mark]

Right there in the following comment area I would write...." Appraiser did not require any conditions. The client/lender has required the owner to remove the 2nd kitchen and restore access."

Forum member is not replying to your post. Member did not read any of the words you have posted. Member is, at present, practicing his typing skills. Use of this forum for said practice is because it was the most readily available and convenient medium in which to do so. This should not be construed as a reply. The partial quote of your post above was merely a practice session of utilizing the highlight and cut features of this particular software program and the hardware attached to member's computer. Member further clarifies that no opinion is implied by this practice typing session. Any interpretation of these words as an opinion is done against the forum member's express intentions and should not be considered a reliable interpretation.

 

[MN Mark]

Did you believe it?

 

[VolcanoLvr]

Geesh folks...at least some of you. Why do you make something so simple so wierd?

There were NO 'subject to' conditions in the OP's original report. Therefore, an appraiser cannot ethically complete a 1004D which comments on the non-existant conditions. The 1004D requires the prior report be included by reference, or by an actual copy.

I don't care how you slice and dice it, or how many concoctions you try to create in your easy bake oven...........this is not the time for that.

It is pure and simple a new assignment.

 

[CANative]

Technically, I suppose, the 1004D is not the correct form for the additional scope of work requested by the client. But the only ones who understand this or care about it are other appraisers and other appraisers are not the intended users of our work.

I say protest this to a point but don't shut them down over some silly argument about form usage. Just modify the form to make it work for THEIR intended use (include verbiage that the modification may render the appraisal report unsuitable for the secondary market).

 

[Mike Boyd]

Geesh folks...at least some of you. Why do you make something so simple so wierd?

There were NO 'subject to' conditions in the OP's original report. Therefore, an appraiser cannot ethically complete a 1004D which comments on the non-existant conditions. The 1004D requires the prior report be included by reference, or by an actual copy.

I don't care how you slice and dice it, or how many concoctions you try to create in your easy bake oven...........this is not the time for that.

It is pure and simple a new assignment.

So, what do you propose? Blow off the clients request so that the loan cannot be expeditiously funded? I know. You and others do not care if the loan is EVER funded. The 1004D is NOT a form that you cannot alter with a very minor comment.

What point are you trying to prove?

 

[Mike Boyd]

M.B.

I think you missed my point. I don't "give" value to anything ever in my work. The market does that. I also cannot not give value, that is the market's jurisidiction again. I'm not there to reflect what I want, nor should any of us be doing that.

And I'll let you argue it out with my appraisal board that has already published for Oregon appraisers that if we go signing certifications that say one thing, and we then toss in addendum language that says completely the opposite.... that we can plan on the board finding us guilty of having produced a misleading appraisal or other type of report. So certainly, do whatever you want...

in California ........................

I am personally not going to sign a certification that says my appraisal report had something in it that it did not. And maybe the problems many of the rest of us have are due to appraisers that ARE signing certifications that say things that are not true to the facts, combined with lending clients that expect them to.

There must have been too many overcast days in Oregon this winter.

 

[Webbed Feet]

G.B.

You know darn well that is not going to work either. Both the AMC and lender's underwriter are going to barf on that. They WANT a 1004d because some silly automated system, or rule book, is telling them they have to have one before the loan can be funded. Or at least their badly trained staffs will probably think that way.

But this does not alter the fact this entire problem was caused by the relationships appraisers have with AMC's, lack of training of AMC staffs and their demands for "As Is" appraisal reports. This all ended up here because our good friend, the original poster, should have known if the Intended Use was to sell to Fannie that a SOW demanding an "As Is" involving a non-market acceptable illegal unit was an unacceptable SOW! .. That was rapidly followed by the darn underwriter should have known that also and should have stipped for the SOW to be altered for a "Subject To" condition to be used to remove the illegal additional unit.

This all comes down to crappy communications caused by AMC's, appraisers and underwriters not working together and both of them trying to shove off responsibility on each other for making borrowers and loan originators unhappy. Over a decade ago, well informed appraisers did NOT have these stupid issues! We just hit the phones when we got back to the office, and in a one minute chat, directly with a bank's appraisal department, the scope was made "Subject To." This fricking demand for "As Is" appraisals on everything, appropriate or not, did not exist. Good communications got all this donkey kong correct in the first place. Today, good communications, something REQUIRED by the SOW Rule by the way, are in the toilet. In fact, many appraisers completely avoid trying to attempt them because they get accused of being "difficult" by some AMC monkey that only cares about proving how fast they personally can force every appraiser to meet a turn time, the value wanted, all "As Is" 100% of the time.

Debating about if we should sign certifications that say one thing, while we are doing something else or something else really happened, should be a dead debate. It is Fannie's fault for creating such ridged forms, not our trade's fault. Our trade has to have standards, our boards have to enforce them, and speculating on doing that one or not should have no speculation at all going on about it. The real debate here is appraisers not feeling at liberty to comply with the SOW Rule, the way it is intended to be complied with, due to pressure from AMC staffs to mold each and every assignment into their version of the perfect and sanitized appraisal report.

 

[Webbed Feet]

So, what do you propose? Blow off the clients request so that the loan cannot be expeditiously funded? I know. You and others do not care if the loan is EVER funded. The 1004D is NOT a form that you cannot alter with a very minor comment.

What point are you trying to prove?

M.B.

You can ignore this, but I hope other appraisers across the nation don't. Not without knowing how their boards will react. I am telling you that you are potentially going to get appraisers in other states in hot water if they follow what you are saying.

A "very minor comment" does NOT work for quite a few appraisal boards. Those certifications themselves would have to be REDACTED out of the form so that the appraiser would not be signing one thing and then saying another. Doing otherwise would be a receipe for some of us being asked by our boards which time we were lying? Lying when we signed the certification or lying in our addendum comment? Oh several board members may VERY well agree it was completely understandable what a difficult position the appraiser was in trying to service their client! .... That would be why they decided it was only a $300 fine and one 15 hour USPAP class the appraiser has to take (with no credit for CE for it by the way) due to signing a certification that was not true or followed and communicating in a misleading manner involving an appraisal assignment.



And yes, it rains in Oregon.

 

[CANative]

And yes, it rains in Oregon.

and rains... and rains... and rains... and rains... and rains.

Most of the AMCs we discuss on the forum have federally regulated institutions as their clients so appraisers are obligated to provide an "as is" value.

A couple of boards and a modest kitchenette making a residence unmarketable? I doubt it. Developing an "as is" value should be easy.