2055 Exterior And Then Borrower Lets Me In?

[residentialguy]

With the language of the certs in the latest 2055, I wouldn't do it unless the subject had a recent MLS listing with good photos and details. But I digress...that's another discussion.

 

[Vermonter]

Yeah. I do not understand why most appraisers discount the 2055 so much. When I was out in the field we only did a 5% discount for 2055.

Never understood that either. My old mentor used to discount the 2055 with interior! Why? I never discounted them at all and in fact would charge more for one in my current coverage area due to the lack of data.

That being said, if an owner wants to let you in, by all means take the opportunity to verify the interior. Can't think of a reason not to.

 

[DWiley]

When the 2055 was first introduced it was a one page form. That was a different world. With the 2005 revisions, the difference between the 2055 and 1004 became minimal. Looking at it from my current seat, the QC is certainly not less .

 

[chad hampton]

I wouldn't go inside if the client ordered a 2055 ext. I would come back if I saw someone in the front yard. I only sit outside their house for about 5 seconds.

 

[residentialguy]

I wouldn't go inside if the client ordered a 2055 ext. I would come back if I saw someone in the front yard. I only sit outside their house for about 5 seconds.

why?

 

[ucbruin]

I wouldn't go inside if the client ordered a 2055 ext. I would come back if I saw someone in the front yard. I only sit outside their house for about 5 seconds.

 

[Mr Rex]

In my office i did not view it as more work, but certainly it isn't significantly less work. It is essentially the same as a 1004, except that one has to rely on data sources other than personal inspection for info on relevant characteristics. We had research assistants on staff to assist with that, which meant that appraiser time was actually slightly reduced. There was also some savings on admin costs because an inspection did not have to be scheduled, which also meant some work efficiency gain. Netting it all out, we did them at about a 5% lower fee than a 1004 on the same property.

I imagine the fees offered by your current employee are only 5% less then huh?

 

[Tom4value]

No. I would simply clarify the extent of the inspection/observation. In fact, I might use "observation" rather than "inspection." Example:

In addition to the exterior inspection, the appraiser also completed a limited observation of the interior. The appraiser walked through the home at the invitation of the owner. The home was not measured; the GLA is from (insert source). This observation was NOT a complete visual inspection as required when using form 1004.

How hard is that?​

The reason we inspect properties is to gather data, and i just don't see the downside to gathering the most data I can.

What is hard is that you are blurring the lines as to what you are and not responsible for in the observation. You are stating that you, " completed a limited observation of the interior". What does that mean? I am not being flippant when I ask, did you just look around from inside the front door? Did you observe the basement or even the second floor? Not measuring the house is an exterior job.

I am no lawyer and I don't play one on t.v. but if you neglect to mention the master bath being gutted, I find it hard to believe that you could get away with saying it was not covered in your "limited observation".
BTW- I agree, for months now, I also have been substituting "observation" for "inspection".

 

[hastalavista]

I don't think there is going to be a consensus here, because to enter with an invitation from the homeowner or not to enter to is a business decision (or, as Amy pointed out, potentially a personal-safety issue). And, if this was a foreclosure or default/troubled asset (where the order typically states, "do not make contact with the occupant") then I wouldn't; I'd do the same as Chad: if I saw someone outside, I'd drive by until it was clear or I'd take the photo on the sly.

I just see zero liability of walking through the house and stating something like this:

At the time of my drive-by, the owner was at the house. He approached me and asked what I was doing and I informed him I was providing an appraisal for my client. He acknowledged he was anticipating this, and asked me if I'd like to take a quick look inside. I did; I walked through some (but not all) of the home to confirm the overall condition rating. I've taken some interior photos; they depict the level of my observation on a limited basis. I did not complete an inspection consistent with the expectations of a 1004 assignment; I did not observe the all of the interior and made no notes as to components/configuration. I did not measure the house. Based on what I did see, I have confirmed the overall condition rating of X is appropriate.​

If others think that increases the liability, then stay in the car. I see it as the exact opposite.
As far as an additional fee; it takes all of 5 minutes to walk through and snap a few photos, and another 5 minutes to write the statement and put in the photos. This isn't "scope creep" thrust upon me by the client. This is (from my perspective) the prudent thing to do when one is appraising a property from the street for a 2055 destined for the GSEs and one has the opportunity to walk inside the house and eye-ball it for no more than 5 minutes.

 

[DWiley]

I imagine the fees offered by your current employee are only 5% less then huh?

I don’t set or offer fees. I ask Appraisers to tell me their fees. That was/is my point. Some are not very smart about that. See the other posts about Appraisers being good business people