Supplemental REO Addendum

[Mr Rex]

Why don't you go back and find when you quoted USPAP or AF "advisories" in support of one of your positions? That should save us both a ton of time. Get back to me Monday or so with the plethora of examples you have, I wouldn't want to rush you.

 

[J Grant]

You started this, not me, I have better things to do. Find an example of something I wrote that you feel is contrary to USPAP, and post it for discussion, or stop bad mouthing me.

I am reacting to your vile post, I didn't start this nosense so am not going to waste time on it.

 

[Mr Rex]

You avoid the actual copy of USPAP like a vampire dodging light, but have to chime in on every post on the AF. Vile? Vile is spilling misinformation to the masses 24/7, which apparently is now part of your AF profile.

 

[J Grant]

I'll let you have your last silly word in...and wait for you to quote word for word from one of my posts an example of "misinformation" that I wrote....

 

[residentialguy]

I was replying with your posts for examples of "misinformation" and when I hit post reply it said:

"You have exceeded the maximum amount of bandwidth of the server"

 

[J Grant]

lol...good one! ):

 

[J Grant]

Thanks for removing that post, mine is now # 45, a great relief , many thanks again):

 

[J Grant]

I have a question: Both Liquidation Value, and Dispostion Value, state the CONSUMMATION of a sale with the restricted marketing period. That means the sale needs to close within the restricted marketing period.

That is a very different implication than market value, which indicates only what a property should bring, or sell for, in a reasonable marketing time.

LV and DV , by stating the consumation of a sale, indicates a marketing time that will acheive a closed sale within that time frame.

Thoughts and opinion, please?

 

[J Grant]

Getting back to Lee's OP...

Is his question whether the client modified definition of market value on the REO addendum is, or can be, USPAP compliant?

The regular def of MV states what a property should bring in a reasonable marketing time. The REO addendum imposes a client restricted marketing time, but still asks for a market value opinion. That would indicate that an appraiser believes that the property can bring a MV $ amount within the client imposed marketing time.

The alternative, that Res Guy and R Smith recomend, is that the appraiser advise the client that what they need is DV or LV, and to substitute those definitions .

Though they make a compelling argument, imo, this takes the assignment in a whole new direction, given that both LV and DV state that a sale be consummated within the restricted marketing time. This indicates a different level of agressive pricing in order to achieve a consummation of sale within a specific time frame.

Thoughts and opinions, would like to hear from Lee L, who started this post!

 

[J Grant]

The consumation of a sale aspect of LV and DV is why many of these properties are sold at auction...auction terms demand consumation of a sale within a short time after bid, such as 5 or 10 days. Thus, these properties are often sold as cash.

How do appraisers using the LV or DV def in a lender report address the consummation of sale aspect, which indicates that typically the property would be sold for cash?.