Cigar,
One of my favorite posters! Long time no see! ... Hey, did you know that if;
After her offer was accepted, on the advice of the [FONT="]seller’s real estate agent, Sage asked her lender, Security[/FONT] [FONT="]Mortgage Company (“Security”), to retain Joseph Blagg of Blagg[/FONT] [FONT="]Appraisal Company, LTD, to perform the appraisal.[/FONT]
that the this seller's agent just might have a really nice, large, chunk of that liability also? That the buyer didn't see that as a red flag would be amazing, but any seller's agent doing that has the IQ of a (complete sentence with something here).
<......snip.......>why would a reasonable person believe that the value of the subject property was any different than what a certified or licensed appraiser appraised it at?
Why would a reasonable person believe all real estate appraisal scopes of work are exactly the same, and not understand when they are not the outcomes can be completely different? You tell me, ignorance?
<............snip...........> the inference here is that the value opinion of the appraiser is higher to a lender than a buyer, <...........snip.........>
I don't observe where you get that or where it was inferred anywhere in this thread.
<...........snip..........>a tacit admission that the appraiser "met the numbers". If an appraiser is so concerned about the accuracy of his report dependent upon differing users, he/she should write something in his report like: "The intended user of this report is ________ Bank, the appraiser in making this report foresees no other users and this report is not intended to be used by any other users."
I agree. We do have something very similar to that and, at least, was approved by Fannie Mae under some dirty looks from state appraisal boards.
<...............snip.........>From a factual standpoint, not relevant to this appelant decision, what real difference does the square footage make anyway? Value is not dependent upon square footage, or shouldn't be, square footage has nothing to do with the cost, and shouldn't have anything to do with the value, I actually think that appraisers' and realtors' reliance upon square footage actually establishes square footage as a value determiner, which it shouldn't be. For instance a small high quality custom home should be much more valuable than a larger low quality tract home.
You compare apples to oranges at the end of your statement there. Regardless, square footage will continue to be one of the top five issues litigation circles around simply because it is one of the most easy of items to find to dispute. None of this, what you have posted, is going to do anything to mitigate things for anyone as long as sellers and buyers continue to move blindly forward ignorant that a lender could order a SOW that, for example, causes the assessor's footage esimates to be used instead of appraiser measured ones. And you misconstrue. Appraisers, most of them I would think of, do not "rely" on square footage as you put it, any more than we rely on location, date of sale, design, or roof type for that matter. All of this would only be parts of development, not
all of the development! You are posting just a little bit like "GLA" is the only row there is on a sales comparison grid and their are no other rows. We take many other things into account than that.
Also, regardless of your views that appraisers should be accountable to the entire world for every appraisal, if that really is the case and we have a lot of litigation that way, you can count on appraisal fees becoming staggering. When I have private parties approach me with both a seller and buyer wanting to use my work to determine a price between themselves, I promptly demand indemnification and hold harmless out of them both. My work could be perfect, the markets change, and then the seller decides to sue because they want to claim I was low, or the buyer decide to sue and they want to claim I was too high. Or their estates decide to try and sue me after the fact for the same reasons. It is like double jeopardy. It, in some small ways, would be like an attorney representing a plaintiff and a defendant at the same time. So I suggest if the legal system really wants to place all of us in no-win situations over this, then the public should brace themselves for what a service that represents the fall person for literally everyone is going to cost.
