Contract Price

[J Grant]

You're the one claiming the lender portion exists. I guess if there's no appraiser portion, there are no rules.

The Fannie selling guide has sections for lenders and sections for appraisers.

 

[Mike Ault]

I still do not see why a new appraisal is needed just because the contract price is provided after the appraisal is done. Just enter it as a revision and explain.

Yes, brought to you by the same people who consider a final inspection as "a new assignment" rather than "an extension of the old assignment". Requiring us to interrogate the lender who orders a simple 1004D. "I have completed an appraisal report for the subject in the prior three years, do you still want me to complete this assignment?". Ridiculous, and makes us appear like clowns. In the scenario under discussion, the purpose of the first appraisal was to provide information necessary to determine a sales price for the subject. The purpose of the second appraisal is to facilitate a mortgage lending decision for the subject. A change sufficient in my opinion to trigger a new assignment, but I certainly wouldn't castigate anybody who feels otherwise.

 

[alebrewer]

The Fannie selling guide has sections for lenders and sections for appraisers.

Ahh. Makes sense. You've never really read the Selling Guide have ya?

The section that the several 'musts' were pulled from is titled: "Subject and Contract Sections of the Appraisal Report" and state, 'The appraiser must'

In what kind of twisted universe can you dispose of those requirements by stating that section is in the 'Underwriter' section? Step back and just think about what you're writing before you hit the 'Save' button. There are some folks here that might believe what you're throwing out.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Time to throw a wrench into the works. Appraiser has a contract that states the purchase price will be the appraised value. Appraiser gets to the point where the have developed their OMV. What is in place that would prevent the appraiser to enter their OMV as the purchase price in the contract price field?

 

[Mike Ault]

Time to throw a wrench into the works. Appraiser has a contract that states the purchase price will be the appraised value. Appraiser gets to the point where the have developed their OMV. What is in place that would prevent the appraiser to enter their OMV as the purchase price in the contract price field?

Good point. Absolutely nothing. However, the contract you were provided will not be properly executed with a signature date. Only a fool would sign a contract promising to pay substantially more money than they think the property is worth.

 

[Dublin ohio]

However, the contract you were provided will not be properly executed with a signature date.

That is a question for the OP. If the contract is signed, it is signed and fully executed. If the OMV is higher than the buyer "thinks" it is worth that would be a discussion between buyer and seller. Of course we do not know all of the details of the contract

 

[Mike Ault]

That is a question for the OP. If the contract is signed, it is signed and fully executed. If the OMV is higher than the buyer "thinks" it is worth that would be a discussion between buyer and seller. Of course we do not know all of the details of the contract

I think it would be a foolish buyer indeed to sign a contract with a blank value. But there are some very foolish buyers out there, admittedly.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I think it would be a foolish buyer indeed to sign a contract with a blank value. But there are some very foolish buyers out there, admittedly.

No doubt, saw a lot of that during the boom. People paying 10% or more over list and bringing thousands of dollars at closing to cover the appraisal "gap".

 

[J Grant]

Yes, brought to you by the same people who consider a final inspection as "a new assignment" rather than "an extension of the old assignment". Requiring us to interrogate the lender who orders a simple 1004D. "I have completed an appraisal report for the subject in the prior three years, do you still want me to complete this assignment?". Ridiculous, and makes us appear like clowns. In the scenario under discussion, the purpose of the first appraisal was to provide information necessary to determine a sales price for the subject. The purpose of the second appraisal is to facilitate a mortgage lending decision for the subject. A change sufficient in my opinion to trigger a new assignment, but I certainly wouldn't castigate anybody who feels otherwise.

The purpose is an opinion of the market value in all these assignments. The purpose of the first appraisal was not to determine a sale price for the subject. Read what it sayson the URAR first page -

The purpose of an appraisal is different than the intended use. But in both cases, the intended use ( see the certs ) is to evaluate the subject property for lending.

 

[J Grant]

Ahh. Makes sense. You've never really read the Selling Guide have ya?

The section that the several 'musts' were pulled from is titled: "Subject and Contract Sections of the Appraisal Report" and state, 'The appraiser must'

In what kind of twisted universe can you dispose of those requirements by stating that section is in the 'Underwriter' section? Step back and just think about what you're writing before you hit the 'Save' button. There are some folks here that might believe what you're throwing out.

You can not bring yourself to admit that this MUST verbiage is in the portion of selling guide section for the lenders - yes THEY must ensure the contract price is present for THEIR submission of the appraisal. Nbodou is arguing otherwise