Reviewer said: "County’s Public Records" cannot be used as a verification source in the Prior Sale History....

[glenn walker]

Its

YES SIR !!!!
IS WHY: In the report SCA GRID USE Comments for CS#1, #2, #3...: 1= First comment- per each sale (#1): have the date closed followed by the deed/pg & recorded date
( CS#1: Closed on ########. Deed Bk, Page: XXXXXX. Followed by comments.)
Then of course using MLS #/ DOM: xx per grid format.
At the end of each grid-use comment = the most recent Past Sale History Date & $$$ with why for the change of price over-time = typically market appreciation from the past recent sale date.
Why: rarely ever have an after delivery stip when the market-change over-time question comes up.

In deeds, I find it typical to have the recorded date just barely sold/closed date different. In NC, as was said...running to the courthouse to record the deed...wins!

Side Thoughts: Didn't think that was a violation of "" USPAP "" if doing your best & naming/dates of source data. Rare but I've seen source info' change from morning to that afternoon.
Rare but there are times New isn't NEW because the builder used it as their "model home". Converse, where used as a model home it may be 2 years old where no one ever resided, almost New but someone listed it "as New".
Then there's the Builder sold the model ...as new...but still using it on a lease-back.
ANYWAY HAPPY FOURTH EVERYONE

Its not a USPAP issue , its a Fannie, Freddie, FHA, Guideline. Just do it they way you are doing it, if nobody is giving push back then it's fine. GSE Guidelines in general have nothing to do with USPAP and USPAP doesn't care how you do it and as far as if its never been listed or not been in MLS then just state who marketed it and sold it .

 

[ramrcdk]

Its

Its not a USPAP issue , its a Fannie, Freddie, FHA, Guideline. Just do it they way you are doing it, if nobody is giving push back then it's fine. GSE Guidelines in general have nothing to do with USPAP and USPAP doesn't care how you do it and as far as if its never been listed or not been in MLS then just state who marketed it and sold it .

KNEW it wasn't...but... thanks for RE-clarifying ! Yep, doing what i do...THANKS

 

[CANative]

Its

Its not a USPAP issue , its a Fannie, Freddie, FHA, Guideline. Just do it they way you are doing it, if nobody is giving push back then it's fine. GSE Guidelines in general have nothing to do with USPAP and USPAP doesn't care how you do it and as far as if its never been listed or not been in MLS then just state who marketed it and sold it .

Not recognizing assignment conditions and executing a scope of work to meet the conditions is probably a violation of the Competency Rule.

 

[Carnivore]

Just as a Reminder. It is somewhat of an issue for the Subject: USPAP Standard 1-5 Since Fannie Mae is the 800lb Gorilla they want it for the Comparable also. If you have been around awhile you know why they want a Sale History of Comparable! AKA Rampant Fraudulent Flipping.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Ask them where it asks for verification source for prior transfers?

 

[ramrcdk]

Just as a Reminder. It is somewhat of an issue for the Subject: USPAP Standard 1-5 Since Fannie Mae is the 800lb Gorilla they want it for the Comparable also. If you have been around awhile you know why they want a Sale History of Comparable! AKA Rampant Fraudulent Flipping.

Absolutely AND if it looks like IT, a flip-flop, I just hope it isn't one of those "best comps". I try to avoid those rascals. Whats' worse is when they just keep giving it back to each-other raising the price by a bit each time... like in # of days/weeks !

(Local: Freedom Corridor & upwards of Thrift Rd & off Camp Greene @@@ lots of that . BUT LOOK at the New midrise, condos, re-habs, new custom?
Did the lying-cheating investor instigate that some 4-5 years ago?)

 

[Carnivore]

Honestly, this all falls down to the perspective. Nearly every appraiser would understand exactly what MMing5000 meant when looking at a report with the term "Public Records" as verification. Most analysts in our profession wouldn't have given a 2nd thought about the broadness of the term, because we view that term as specific in the context it was used. If the comparable is in a certain county, an appraiser automatically knows "Public Records" references that sale's specific county. An appraiser automatically knows "Public Records" is also specific to that sale alone involving recorded information no matter if it is tax assessment, deed recordation, etc. Appraisers do not generally view phrases or terms as being vague or ambiguous because we understand the context and intent.

Other non-appraiser personalities (or those who believe themselves a reviewer deity in this profession) might choose to view "Public Records" as an idiom and believe it to mean "Any Public Records" which may or may not be applicable to that sale at all. This mindset believes all phrases in an appraisal must be narrowed to a focused proper noun.

Seems quite often we have to explain things, that truly needs no clarification at all. Many moons ago, I was requested to use a more detailed explanation about the street type in a URAR I had completed. After a few questions back and forth, I finally changed "Gravel" to "Red Clay Chert" to satisfy the request. Red Clay Chert is certainly much more specific than Gravel, without question. But a couple of weeks later, I had to put an additional definition of the word "Chert" in the report because the lender's reviewer had never heard of it and thought I had made a spelling error of some kind. lol

Dale, I actually agree with you. In Private Citizen work I don't spell out everything like we do in FNMA Series Development and Reporting. Question is WHY I don't? Simple answer is because the Civilian Doesn't hand me a Book Full of Requirements, whereas with Lending assignments they do. OTOH in Legal Work I do and don't spell out everything to the minutest degree. That reporting is driven in part by the Attorney. The Attorney can not tell me to do less than USPAP requirements but he can limit what I say or don't say. Either way with an attorney It's all up to me to meet minimums.

I think it was Canative earlier Stated that if you don't follow the Selling Guide or the Client Requirements in the Engagement Letter in reporting you'r not meeting the minimums of the Client. That in itself is a violation of the Ethics Rule. If you don't understand what they want and don't ask for clarification then its a USPAP Competence problem.

Some of this is because of the below.


When it comes to Lenders and their AMC Phone Monkeys etc Well we are the Monkey at the bottom and the proverbial crap rolls down hill and lands on us. It is what it is, and we can't change it.

Some of this problem is created by Little Hitler's who love control. The AMC is trying to validate and justify the money they get. Look at Me!, Look at Me! Stips and Reporting Requirements from AMC'(Checker Dude) and Lenders often are often nonsensical. They are designed around a FHA Grade, on-slab Cookie Cutter in a 100 home S/D. I never get those assignments.

Then throw in the incessant need for speed. "I want it; I want it Now" Its killing us.

 

[CANative]

when looking at a report with the term "Public Records" as verification.

If what they mean is the public record being the information in NDC, Realist, FNC, etc. then they are not looking at "public records."

 

[Michael S]

I would list a book and page or document number for the transfer deed and/or the MLS# for the sale. With that information a reviewer (assuming they have access to that data source) can verify the information if needed.

 

[CANative]

I would list a book and page or document number for the transfer deed and/or the MLS# for the sale. With that information a reviewer (assuming they have access to that data source) can verify the information if needed.