Lender comparing your 2055 to a full appraisal

[Surf Cat]

So, what source for the details did you use?

^^^ This is key.... if you haven't listed any sources such as a prior MLS or listing to determine the subject's condition and features... you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Alsie35]

Has anyone had a lender ask you to revise your exterior only appraisal because it doesn't match the information in a full appraisal that they already had? They want me to comment on subject features that I was not able to view from a drive-by.

If it's just a matter of the GLA for the bed and bath count being different, just use their information, disclose that it was provided by the client, and put in an extraordinary assumption to cover yourself in the event the information turns out to be incorrect.

If they're talking about interior quality or condition, well, they shouldn't be doing that. If they want you to opine on that, they should upgrade this to a 1004.

 

[Alsie35]

The legacy URAR contains 200 fields whereas the new UAD allegedly contains 1600 fields.

Anyone still wondering why I dubbed it "The UAD 3.6 Abomination"?

 

[J Grant]

Has anyone had a lender ask you to revise your exterior only appraisal because it doesn't match the information in a full appraisal that they already had? They want me to comment on subject features that I was not able to view from a drive-by.

It would have been better if they gave you the prior appraisal before you did your appraisal rather than afterward.

In any event, it is what it is - you are now being provided with information that was not made available to you before you did your report.

How you handle it depends on the type of information and the nature of your relationship with your client. If your value opinion does not change because of the new information, then add a comment as a revision that on X date, this information was made available regarding the interior ( describe it ), and that it is not enough to change the value opinion.

However, if the new info is such that it needs new comps and a new value, then imo you should be able to charge the client an additional fee for the additional time. It might need a new assignment at that point as well.

 

[J Grant]

Did the OP have recent enough interior MLS photos or another source to rely on for the interior condiotn and features? If not they should have asked the client for a prior appraisal , or turned down the assignment or upgraded it to a 1004- just saying

 

[Retirement Countdown]

did they give you a copy? If so, then you should have matched what was there and caveated the information with the extraordinary assumption that nothing had changed and you were relying upon information that they provided. The 2055 is explicit. You must have sufficient information about the interior from MLS, prior report, previous inspection, etc. so that you don't simply assume the interior condition is the same as the visible exterior condition. Read the fine print.

So, what source for the details did you use?

No, they just provided the full appraisal a week after my 2055 was delivered. This sounds to me like a new appraisal review assignment.....

 

[Retirement Countdown]

In my exterior report, I do mention that I have a copy of prior report and indicate it's findings and my assumptions of characteristics like what kind of built in appliances and heating system.
Look at it as another source in doing a more "accurate" exterior drive by appraisal.

The prior report was made available after mine was completed and delivered having collected my own data, as was possible. They're asking me after the fact to review the other appraisal (comps and adjustments as well as subject features) and comment on our differences - i.e. a review, therefore a new assignment, in my opinion.

 

[J Grant]

The prior report was made available after mine was completed and delivered having collected my own data, as was possible. They're asking me after the fact to review the other appraisal (comps and adjustments as well as subject features) and comment on our differences - i.e. a review, therefore a new assignment, in my opinion.

How old (or recent ) was the other appraisal?
Did they ask you specifically to perform a review appraisal?

It sounds like they are asking for comments on the other appraisal, perhaps because it shows something different enough from your appraisal to matter - (I assume ). Imo you need to speak to your client about what they expect from you.

 

[JTip]

If the 2055 assignment is an odd property, unlike a 6/3/1 ranch where the tax card and/or MLS has ample credible info, I no problem asking for the origination appraisal (redacted first page of the URAR and sketch) for another verified data source, regardless of the effective date. Done it many times.

 

[Retirement Countdown]

^^^ This is key.... if you haven't

If it's just a matter of the GLA for the bed and bath count being different, just use their information, disclose that it was provided by the client, and put in an extraordinary assumption to cover yourself in the event the information turns out to be incorrect.

If they're talking about interior quality or condition, well, they shouldn't be doing that. If they want you to opine on that, they should upgrade this to a 1004.

listed any sources such as a prior MLS or listing to determine the subject's condition and features... you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

How old (or recent ) was the other appraisal?
Did they ask you specifically to perform a review appraisal?

It sounds like they are asking for comments on the other appraisal, perhaps because it shows something different enough from your appraisal to matter - (I assume ). Imo you need to speak to your client about what they expect from you.

I spoke to the client, and they are asking about subject features as well as the comps and adjustments the other appraiser used, AND tell them if I agree with their comps. Mind, this appraisal was not made available before my exterior was completed and delivered. The client admitted that it should have been made available, but was overlooked.