1004D completion on report from 12+ months ago

[Tacoman]

Have you determined the reason for this 1004D almost 2 years later, in other words, the intended use? If it is to originate a loan somehow, I would be hesitant to leave out the mention.

YOU and only you determine the ultimate SOW. If you and client cannot come to terms on that, you must decline the assignment.

If this was a one off assignment, not a hill worth dying on. If a main client, that gets more fuzzy in practical terms, but USPAP takes precedence over business concerns.

I called the AMC (original question was via email) and they said go ahead and mention it with commentary caveats.

In this case. Why would it be misleading and where does it say we are required to divulge information not applicable to the report. By expanding the scope. You could easily open yourself up to liability. If reporting the kitchen condition screws up the loan.

I think if there is information that if reported, would screw up the loan, then they absolutely should be notified. If they read it and shrug, then there is no harm.

 

[Overimprovement]

I called the AMC (original question was via email) and they said go ahead and mention it with commentary caveats.

I think if there is information that if reported, would screw up the loan, then they absolutely should be notified. If they read it and shrug, then there is no harm.

That's why understanding the intended purpose (which we should every time anyway) is extra important here. Let's expand the example and say there has a been a fire through the house which did not get to the bathroom--it is finished and untouched by the fire. Are there those here that would NOT report this, even on a 1004D?

Talk about leaving oneself open to liability. If the client is trying to save a little time/money just by getting that 1004D signed off, shame on them. If appraiser doesn't mention something that a potential investor would absolutely WANT to know, than shame on the appraiser...there is such a thing as purposeful fraud out there.

 

[CGinMN]

Are you saying it doesn't even need to be mentioned?

That is not what I'm saying. Per my post #9, "Mark yes, add a comment that the kitchen is now under renovation. Include photos of the completed work and kitchen in your photo addendum."

In these cases, you don't ask the AMC or lender what they want, because you don't know who is giving you the instructions - is it the AMC rep, LO, processor, UW, or chief appraiser? - and in any case, they aren't considering your risk and what might be needed not to mislead. My resolution protects you from risk while giving the client what they need without being misleading.

Again, nonsense. What happens after effective date of the appraisal has NO bearing on your appraisal. The original issues are resolved but yes. i would mention it to the lender, but not on the 1004D.

Why are you so intent on withholding what you saw from the 1004D? I'm just telling you from a lender's perspective what I would ask the appraiser to report. You do you.



Are the conditions stated in the original report subject to Cert 15?

 

[J Grant]

In this case. Why would it be misleading and where does it say we are required to divulge information not applicable to the report. By expanding the scope. You could easily open yourself up to liability. If reporting the kitchen condition screws up the loan.

It is not our job to pretend a condition was not there in order to avoid "screwing up a loan". Loan edibility is the lender's bailiwick, ours is appraising the property and it is misleading not to mention a major observed condition we found on inspection.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Are the conditions stated in the original report subject to Cert 15?

Only if you consider a completion certificate to be an appraisal report.

 

[Overimprovement]

It is not our job to pretend a condition was not there in order to avoid "screwing up a loan". Loan edibility is the lender's bailiwick, ours is appraising the property and it is misleading not to mention a major observed condition we found on inspection.

I actually think both you and Dublin COULD be correct, depending on what the actual agreed upon scope of work and intended uses are. The problem is, we don't actually know either one in this example. What form the client requests the appraiser to use is not the only facet in determining SOW or intended use.

 

[CGinMN]

Only if you consider a completion certificate to be an appraisal report.

I know it is generally not considered to be such, but could this not be contrued as an appraisal?

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

You're right about the angst, that should be my middle name.

So I asked, and the AMC is telling me not to mention it at all, which is the answer I was afraid of... I feel like that has to be at least mentioned. I'm happy to caveat it with language stating it is not related to the original report.

No need to mention it but I would CMA by stating any other alterations to the property, other than those specified in the report, after the effective date are not part of this.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

I know it is generally not considered to be such, but could this not be contrued as an appraisal?

View attachment 70980

What if you just describe it as having a negative impact, or no impact. Is that enough to consider it an appraisal?

 

[Dublin ohio]

It is not our job to pretend a condition was not there in order to avoid "screwing up a loan". Loan edibility is the lender's bailiwick, ours is appraising the property and it is misleading not to mention a major observed condition we found on inspection.

The point I was making. In todays litigious society. It wouldn't take much of an attorney to point out the requirements of the report and claim the expansion of the scope was not part of the report requirements. Just sayin.