Appraisal On Form 1004 For 'individual Client'

[Elliott]

Please tell me the violations if I use this form. It would include a 6-page addendum that addresses purpose, scope, highest and best use, adjustments, detrimental conditions, special limiting conditions, resume, and all those things that are recommended by my E/O company.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Peter-

That was a concern when the reporting requirements were changed, but TAF came out with this FAQ to indicate there was no issue.

View attachment 32657

Thanks - I knew that FAQ was part of 2016-17 but I was too lazy to pull the reference.

 

[BRCJR]

Please tell me the violations if I use this form. It would include a 6-page addendum that addresses purpose, scope, highest and best use, adjustments, detrimental conditions, special limiting conditions, resume, and all those things that are recommended by my E/O company.

Technically, you are not using the "form" doing what you are doing. You are using an altered and/or portion of the form. There is a difference.

 

[bnmappraisal]

Please tell me the violations if I use this form. It would include a 6-page addendum that addresses purpose, scope, highest and best use, adjustments, detrimental conditions, special limiting conditions, resume, and all those things that are recommended by my E/O company.

I'll just say that IF (god forbid/knock on wood) you were in front of a state board, they may be able to find the violation. I'm not on, nor ever was on, a state board, but have seen posts/threads regarding this topic on here many times (as MCG pointed out) over the years.

 

[bnmappraisal]

I'll just say that IF (god forbid/knock on wood) you were in front of a state board, they may be able to find the violation. I'm not on, nor ever was on, a state board, but have seen posts/threads regarding this topic on here many times (as MCG pointed out) over the years.

(Edit to add I agree with BRCJR - you are using a portion of the form; right or wrong I don't know. But I wouldn't advise another appraiser who is "new(er)" to private work to do this. You, Elliott, are obviously a seasoned vet of the industry. So making your own "form" is possibly easier for you than a "rookie" I'd still advise the OP to use a GPAR; at least for now

 

[Elliott]

I'm using the form so my sales data will be consistent and reduce the potential for errors.

 

[hastalavista]

I'm using the form so my sales data will be consistent and reduce the potential for errors.

I don't see any issues in what you are doing; there is no reference to mortgage finance connected with the intended use.

However and in my opinion, there are so many alternatives available (many by the form providers that look exactly like a 1004, etc.) that have been scrubbed of mortgage finance intended use language that I wouldn't use a GSE form.

Here's an excerpt from an enforcement action published by my regulator (BREA):


This is not remotely similar to what you have done, Elliot, but it highlights the danger of trying to keep the "mortgage" implication out of a form designed for "mortgage" appraisals.

 

[Don Clark]

I'm using the form so my sales data will be consistent and reduce the potential for errors.

Bull ****! You are using it in violation of the copyright helf by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, as I stated before, it is a violation of USPAP as it is misleading as you are removing or altering the required scope of work that goes with the form.

I doubt the Oregon board will be as understanding as some posters on here seem to be.

 

[hastalavista]

Well, there are at least two different opinions, Elliot!

For a binary outcome, I assume you'll get 10 different answers from us appraisers!

 

[Mr Rex]

Perhaps this will resurrect the copyright debate...Lets hope not....