Gated Community

[TJSum]

I do this often, also if there is not a guard at the gate just wait and follow another car in.

Isn't that called trespassing? I find it ironic that a review appraiser hired to find fraud with anothers work would break the law themself to do so, just saying...

 

[Mr Rex]

I do this often, also if there is not a guard at the gate just wait and follow another car in.

Based on tha latest diplomatic exchanges between the US and Pakistan, that's what Seal Team 6 did on Sunday.

 

[TJSum]

HUGE assumption. BTW, some companies caught holding the bag (the bad loan) will do anything to get the originator to take the loan back, so I'm not sure why you're assuming the appraisal was inflated. After all, loans don't go bad because the appraisal was inflated. They go bad because the borrower quits paying.

Of course there are plenty of bad appraisers and appraisals out there. But when the client of a reviewer has an agenda, it makes me wonder how many of these reviewers are cherry picking comps in the opposite direction. I'm all for cleaning up the problems, but the clean up should have happened before the loan closed, not after the damage has been done and the clients have a new agenda just as biased as when the original appraisal was ordered.

 

[J Grant]

Unless the review appraiser is a jerk, why would they cherry pick comps in the opposite direction?? In any case, once a review is done the original appraiser is usually supplied with the new comps or review for a rebuttal...if the original report was sound, the orig appraiser's rebuttal (defense of value) will be upheld instead of the review appraiser's opinion of value.

When I used to do reviews, I used to pray each orig appraisal was fine so I could agree with it...didn't happen too often but what reviewer in their right mind wants to disagree with value and then have three times the work for the same fee?

Following another car in..I refuse to do it now. You can get arrested ( I did have a security patrol in a community threaten to report me to police). not worth it. If we can't get in, we can't. Disclose it and let client deal with it.

 

[23Degrees]

The scope of work is clear on this in the form. I don't know if this tactic will be successful in making the review null and void with regard to the buy back attempt but it could cause problems.

It is interesting to note that the same requirement exists for the comparable sales, an exterior inspection from the street, as is the case for the 1004 - not news to anyone reading this thread but maybe it brings up an interesting possible counterpoint via the Jurisdictional Exception Rule.

While I could not find anything in the current Fannie guidelines regarding what happens when one cannot actually view the comparables from the street (or in this case, the subject), it seems that at least one HUD office has issued a statement on this (taken from this post: http://appraisersforum.com/showpost.php?p=1819097&postcount=43). While this thread's scenario is not FHA, they make use of the Fannie form with the noted SOW and incorporate their own stricter photographic requirements:

[FONT=&quot]"You are correct that HUD will not require you to violate local tresspass laws in order to comply with the Scope of Work as dictated in HUD Handbook 4150.2, Revised Appendix D (attached to Mortgagee Letter 2005-48), Page D-13.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First and foremost, HUD requires that all appraisals of properties used in connection with FHA-insured loans comply with USPAP (Handbook 4150.2, Section 4-0). Having said that, USPAP makes exceptions for instances where a Scope of Work would otherwise require violation of local laws & ordinances (Jurisdictional Exception Rule, USPAP 2008-2009, hereinafter "JER"). It is inappropriate for ANYONE to ask an appraiser to violate USPAP or local laws in performance of an appraisal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, all that is necessary to comply with USPAP AND HUD requirements is that you disclose the reasons you were unable to obtain photographs from the street in front of the comparables (you might want to cite State/County/City ordinances), reference the JER, and as you said you have already done, include both photographs of the gate and MLS photographs.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For future reference, this type of situation also applies when you have a long private drive marked "No Trespassing", and you can't see the improvements from the street. Even if the gate is open, it is illegal for you to drive on the property and take a picture. Take a picture of the drive from the street, disclose and cite oridinances and JER."[/FONT]


Now can this argument be extended to a non-FHA appraisal review where the discrepancy is related to the subject? - That I don't know, particularly if the appraiser did not identify the Jurisdictional Exception "angle" in the report.

 

[J Grant]

USPAP does not address photos and nowhere in USPAP does it state an appraisal even needs photos. Desktop appraisals and reviews are done with no photos and no driveby of the comps.

As long as any photos, or lack of photos/access is disclosed in the report and accepted by client and clear to users of appraisal, the appraiser has not violated USPAP and the appraiser can still develop a credible report and fulfill the SOW.

 

[23Degrees]

USPAP says nothing about photos - agreed. This issue here is "inspection" from the exterior as is indicated in the SOW. Not following the SOW that one signs can be considered a USPAP violation even though USPAP also says nothing about the extent of physical inspection. The above FHA citation sets possible precedence for being able to cite Jurisdictional Exception with regard to that portion of the preprinted SOW. - Maybe

Beyond that it could lead to a lack of credibility if one signs a document indicating that A happened in one section and then indicating that A did not happen in another section.

I think JE might be the best way to handle situations like this where trespassing is the only other option.

 

[JSmith43]

I have reviewed hundreds over the years and the majority had inflated values with cherry picked comps etc ( of course, these are the appraisals that come up for review).

Given the JGrant definition of market value "the most probable price (the definition ends there)" , I'm not surprised.:laugh:

 

[Smokey Bear]

USPAP requires that if you sign the certification, it must be truthfully. Period. There are no exceptions.

 

[J Grant]

What a stupid comment Mentor really crass which rhymes with what you are for making a comment like that.