Appraiser didn't measure during interior inspection

[Mztk1]

I can certainly tell the difference between 2600SF and 3200SF, IN MY MARKET.

Just because a person uses data from the public records does not mean that person is lazy. It means they consider all data available to them. I have never suggested an appraiser NOT measure a property. What I am suggesting is if there is a small difference between what is of public record and my measurement, I defer to the public record. I measure to the nearest 1/2 foot.

Seems Economics has a problem with everyone on this forum. I resent you calling me lazy, you don't know me and have never worked with me. For the record, I get a copy of the sketch from the assessor's office. I make copies of it and print in on the back of my inspection form. I then pull a tape to confirm their measurements.

I am not a draftsman. Measuring to 1/10 is well beyond that which is expected by my clients and that which my peers would do in a similar assignment. The sketch is used to help the client visualize the improvement. Measurements are approximate and round may occur.

Mike, I'm not questioning you. I know you are good at what you do from reading your posts during the year or so I've been here. We don't always agree but I respect where you come from each time. I know plenty of appraisers who do it your way, and they are good appraisers. I've been at it for a while, and I certainly am not the best, so I really have to stay anal about things to get them right. I can tell the difference between 2600sf and 3200sf in some of my markets, where they are tract houses, etc., but I work in many markets and some times a 2600sf feels very big - hideaway doors to the lanai, upper level bonus room, large main rooms but average sized bedrooms, plenty of angles. There are times when a house "feels" bigger than it is, and I think we have all had that experience.

As for measuring to 1/10th of an inch, I do that not because I am a draftsman - you don't have to be to pull a $9.99 tape measure and then punch those results into Apex - I do it because it gives me ANSI to fall back on. You are right, in general (or at a minimum), the sketch IS to visualize the improvements. The reality is, I know a guy who said on framed houses to round down to next even foot because lumber is bought in 2' increments, and I know a woman who uses a wheel and sometimes her measurements on a particular wall will differ from mine by 1 to 2 feet because it skips and bounces, but in the end we all come up with reasonably close numbers. The only time when the figures are way off is when someone relies solely on tax data, or when there is a major error made. As long are you are verifying the measurement in tax data, and walking the property, I think you are doing what your "peers" do. But the idea of doing what your peers do can become over used. A lot of our peers, and sometimes the majority of them, are doing things outside of the scope of work. A lot of peers do not drive their comps even though they sign a certification that they do. That doesn't make it right. If an appraiser relies solely on tax data for a full appraisal and doesn't verify the way you do, it is a liability they are responsible for if it results in a measurable effect on the appraised value.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

With all due respect, Jim, people who do what you have listed here are not my peers!

 

[Mztk1]

With all due respect, Jim, people who do what you have listed here are not my peers!

In license or certification they are, but in practice, no they are not. I get squeemish sometimes when I hear what some guys do. But I'd never get squeemish at a guy who pulls the county tax sketch and measures the property with it in tow to make sure it is accurate. Like I said, a very good appraiser I know does it all the time. And I think you make a very good point that if that house sells it will likely be marketed as being the size the tax data has and not what your measurements say. Psychologically, a 1950sf house can seem inferior to a 2,025sf simple by the magic 2,000 number. If I say 1950 and tax says 2025 who is to say who is right?

 

[Webbed Feet]

So what were the answers?

To All,

I am not sure if it's stubborn misdirection or not, reading the thread, but we still have posters that are insisting on taking this into being about relying on public or MLS information for COMPARABLE and not measuring them, when this thread is about an appraisers apparent misrepresentation regarding measuring a SUBJECT.

Any fact that there is a small difference between actual measurements and public information is not the point at all. Discussing how methods of comparison of comp's public domain information should be used against a subject to obtain a credible analysis is NOT the topic! The entire point is misrepresentation regarding not using measurements developed, or obtained personally, during the site inspection. It is about using some other source and not disclosing that is what was done! So again, this is NOT about if the other source was correct or not, or close or not. Because that does not matter. This thread is about appraisers lying about what they do. Misrepresentation via omission is still misrepresentation!

So I am back to answering the original questions, and as always I am right in my own opinion...

Does anyone know if not measuring a home during an interior inspection could be considered a violation of some sort?

Yes, it could be if it is not disclosed.

So, is not measuring, in and of itself, a violation (like inssuficient scope of work, or something else), or does it only become an issue when an appraiser has relied upon public records data, which is in fact significantly wrong, when all he had to do was put a tape/laser to it?

No, just not measuring is not a violation of USPAP. Relying on incorrect public records is not a violation of USPAP if there is nothing that would cause a reasonable "Peer" to doubt the records. But these answers are dependent on the SOW and disclosures involved. If the SOW requires measuring but the reported SOW is not followed; if the intended users should believe the subject was measured from an expected SOW and they are not informed of lack of measurement; if public records are plagiarized versus used with complete disclosure of using them instead of the expected site obtained subject size estimate; then violations of USPAP have been committed.

When it comes to how and where the subject information was developed, or obtained, .... say what you do, and do what you say! (Yes, this is plagiarized if I don't say I heard out out of my board first! I have no idea if it came from somewhere else before that.) Anything less is a USPAP violation. Obtaining a sketch from some other source, then using public domain information for the subject size, and NOT TELLING YOUR CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS THAT IS WHAT YOU DID is a USPAP violation.

Thanks to several of you for the backup on this. The above is just my opinion, to plagiarize a source I am fond of “sometimes I am right.”

Webbed.

P.S. Do NOT mistake what I said above with KNOWINGLY relying on public records that it is a sure thing that they are incorrect on purpose in order to assist yourself in committing fraud.

 

[Michigan CG]

.... say what you do, and do what you say!

For five years that was pounded in my head.....sounds like a good thread...."sayings your mentor pounded into your head, or quirky sayings from your mentor...."

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

In license or certification they are, but in practice, no they are not. I get squeemish sometimes when I hear what some guys do. But I'd never get squeemish at a guy who pulls the county tax sketch and measures the property with it in tow to make sure it is accurate. Like I said, a very good appraiser I know does it all the time. And I think you make a very good point that if that house sells it will likely be marketed as being the size the tax data has and not what your measurements say. Psychologically, a 1950sf house can seem inferior to a 2,025sf simple by the magic 2,000 number. If I say 1950 and tax says 2025 who is to say who is right?

According to the Uniform Standards, 2008, page U-2 - Appraiser's Peers: other appraisers who have expertise and competency in a similar type of assignment.

License or Certification, in and of it's self does not make one a peer.

Scope of Work Rule, USPAP 2008, page U-13 at line 401 and continuing:

The scope of work is acceptable when it meets or exceeds:

The expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments; and,

What an appraiser's peer's actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment.

Advisory Opinion 29, USPAP 2008, beginning at page A-99 and continuing at line 42..."Merely holding the same type or level of credential does not make one an appraiser's peer".

AO 29 is some really interesting reading.

 

[Couch Potato]

C.P.

Love your posts. Your a great guy. But you needed more coffee this morning.

Mr. Hill's post was about measuring the subjects, NOT the comps! I found his post pretty much right on mark in the sentiment of it. I don't agree with his view of how long it should take to measure "even the most complex home in less than 30 minuties," as I have been at one SFR subject site for six hours measuring improvements before. But I know he meant that generally it just does not take that long to measure since the appraiser was supposed to be there anyway and actually LOOK at the fricking house! You know, actually walk around the outside all the way around the house and actually look at it?
Webbed.

A true statement, but beside the point.

It is the quality of the measurements of the comparable sales that determines the needed quality of the measurements of the subject when doing an appraisal. Suppose you measure the subject an find it is 2326 sqft, but public records indicate 2500 sqft. You have 6 model match sales by the same builder, similar lots, classic cookie cutter houses. Every record you find for the comparable sales says 2500 sqft. Has measuring the house added anything to the cedibility of the opinon of value? Would it be most prudent to:

1. use the measured value for the subject and all comparable sales,
2. use the measured value for the subject and public records for the comparable sales,
3. use the public records for the subject and all comparable sales?

Now add a sale in the same neighborhood by the same builder with one less bedroom and public records indicating a size of 2350. Is in not obvious that the measurement of the subject, although nice information, is irrelevant to the appraisal? If solid numbers were known for the comparable sales, would not the relevance of the measurement of the subject property to the appraisal process be increased?

In either case I would want to have measured and explained any significant discrepancy in my report between the public records and my measurements. Measuring is a good thing to do, but certainly not a necessity IMHO.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Now I am in really big trouble. Just finished an appraisal. Did my sketch...from my measurements I found 1588SF. The public record and MLS both say 1568SF. So, what should I use?

I went back to the builder's file and found the marketing materials for this model...they call it 1570SF, in fact, that is the model number.

What to do...what to do???

 

[Couch Potato]

Now I am in really big trouble. Just finished an appraisal. Did my sketch...from my measurements I found 1588SF. The public record and MLS both say 1568SF. So, what should I use?

I went back to the builder's file and found the marketing materials for this model...they call it 1570SF, in fact, that is the model number.

What to do...what to do???

 

[Mr Rex]

Now I am in really big trouble. Just finished an appraisal. Did my sketch...from my measurements I found 1588SF. The public record and MLS both say 1568SF. So, what should I use?

I went back to the builder's file and found the marketing materials for this model...they call it 1570SF, in fact, that is the model number.

What to do...what to do???

Pull your tape tighter or measure the outside of the foundation (which is where the builders numbers probably came from) instead of the outside surface of the siding.