Slippery Slope: As-repaired And The Appraiser's Assumption

[J Grant]

You're awfully worried about the seller suing you. I 've said what I had to say as far as comments on this post- time for others to contribute if they wish.

 

[djd09]

Res is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Plans and specs for peeling paint. hahahaha

 

[TRESinc]

From your OP- anyone would assume to cure the unsafe boards they would replace them, not tear down the deck ! You could have easily specified, "replace or repair the unsafe boards". Okay, you didn't , just said cure the safety hazard- that opened the door to this owner making the oddball decision to remove deck instead. The answer should have been "NO" to the yes /no portion of the 1004 D, as in No, they did not repair it, they removed it ....then you "fudged your way out of it". Why would you do that? Yeah, the lender was cool with it cause they just want to make the loan- they know It's your liability the original is a house with a deck, adjustments for it, and then as a "cure" the owner removes the deck, and now they are lending on a house with no deck. Hopefully nobody will ever look at this file in the future.

is the safety issue still present with the deck removed? the answer is no. the safety issue has been "cured". no one will trip over loose/rotted boards.

 

[residentialguy]

You're awfully worried about the seller suing you. I 've said what I had to say as far as comments on this post- time for others to contribute if they wish.

Lol, there you go again with your assumptions. I'm not worried... That happened back in circa 2005. You need to see the forest for the trees rather than trying to attack personally to justify something that you don't agree with. This is not about me, is about others avoiding a potential bad situation.

 

[residentialguy]

is the safety issue still present with the deck removed? the answer is no. the safety issue has been "cured". no one will trip over loose/rotted boards.

Right! Appraisers need to remember the intent of what they are to do. The GSEs are concerned about curing the safety issue, not saving the deck or using paint to cure the lead paint hazard. How is the home owner going to eliminate the problem... One you find that out, then appraise it accordingly.

 

[Meandering]

Then you handled it wrong originally. If the deck was in such bad shape, then YOU should have recommended razing it, or giving it no value due to poor condition. Instead you called for repair and adjusted for value of the deck, even though you say the contributory value of that old deck was not "significant". How much was the deck adjusted for?

Whatever, you worked around it to get the deal closed but imo not great advice to follow...

Maybe you should learn that as of the effective date of value, it is what it is.

If your lender does not want to lend on C5 properties they have to tell the borrower that BEFORE the appraiser gets to the inspection.

If the lender does not communicate with there clients, or their clients chose not to maintain and repair their property before you get there.....it is what it is when you get there and that’s how you value it per Fannie guidelines unless it is a C6.

Making EAs because lenders don’t want to lend, for whatever reason, is flat wrong and not credible and is a bias in a direction that favors the lender.

Tell your clients to notify their borrowers the property must be free of hazards and deferred maintenance before the appraiser gets there or no loan will be made.

.

 

[Tom4value]

I wouldn’t worry about what they end up doing as long as you are clear in specifying what you want done AND specify that “any significant deviation from what is actually done and the results of this appraisal may be affected”.

Let’s take your example. If you said, “fix deck”, you may have an issue if they just replaced a ballaster. However, since you specified that you wanted the damaged decking replaced and if they just did the former, they are in hot water and you are covered. If you stated the “any deviation.....” comment, you can rest easy even if removing the deck did affect value because they didn’t do what you specified.

Over the summer, I had an FHA appraisal that had an accessory unit (in law apartment) in the basement. I noted in that appraisal that the BI said that AUs are legal in town as long as they have a permit. I then made the appraisal subject to them getting a permit for the in law apartment and any electrical or plumbing permits the building inspector required in doing so.

About five days later, I was notified that it was all set for my inspection. I was suspicious since I know BIs don’t usually act that fast but I was told to go out anyway. I found that all they did was remove the stove! I told them that they wasted everyone’s time because they didn’t read the report. I told them again that the in law apartment was fine, they just needed a permit. I also added that even removing the stove required a permit (specified by the BI, not me) so any way they go, they need permits. They went bat crap crazy. They finally closed in October but the bottom line is I was covered because I specified in detail what needed to be done in the original report.

 

[TRESinc]

You failed to adequately describe how to cure the repair.

so when you make a report subject-to something being repaired you spell out how that repair is to be completed? damn, you are good (in your own mind).

 

[residentialguy]

I wouldn’t worry about what they end up doing as long as you are clear in specifying what you want done...

So who gave you that authority to tell them what to do, other than to cure the problem?

When you don't get all the plans and specs from a builder, do you tell them how to build it and condition your report to how you think it should be built?

 

[Tom4value]

So who gave you that authority to tell them what to do, other than to cure the problem?

When you don't get all the plans and specs from a builder, do you tell them how to build it and condition your report to how you think it should be built?

You are not telling them to BUILD a deck. You are telling them to REPAIR a deck based upon what you are qualified to OBSERVE; You observed that there were unsafe floor boards. You conditioned that they replace the unsafe floor boards. What plans and specs do you need for that?