Appraising home after performing a review.

[David S. Roberson]

I've done two properties this year that I did two years ago. Both came in less now than they did then. Not my fault. I only report the market.

 

[Larry Lyke]

Karl writes --

I know they HATE seeing the WORD DECLINING but anybody got another word to use?

"Since then, 'the maket has tended to adjust itself in a downward trend.'"

You can pick at that and work it into something factual and meaningful, I hope.

Beyond that, don't get cute ... fashion the wording in that direction. You surely don't want to appear to be an apologist for the client's- or homeowner's-needs or desires. You'll risk attracting the puzzled attention of the underwriter by being seen as trying to misdirect the underwriter's attention.

Always assume, of everybody who will read your appraisal report, the most knowledgeable and intelligent is the underwriter. You have nothing to lose by catering to the underwriter's intelligence. They have the final say, and that's what matters.

 

[Pat Butler]

It's a 'scope' issue. When you did the review, you didn't have the benefit of an interior inspection which influences all of your subsequent decisions. And, your scope of work for reviewing the original appraisal was probably much less than what they are ordering now.

I would definitely disclose the prior review order however and see if the client still wants to go ahead with your order based upon you having done a prior review. They probably think that they have the benefit of having the original appraisal, a review (by someone other than you!), and your new appraisal.

 

[Dale Smalley]

I get these all the time reviewing for the bank. When they go into foreclosure they want you to explain how they can loose 40% in value so quickly. While the quick answer is that they opened the front door. It almost always relates to condition. You are in a big CYA situation where thay are questioning your judgment. Take some time to show the differences in the two sets of data. And that each value conclusion is based on that data only, then you can give a dollar amount for the condition adjustment.
Lately I have been adding a statement that the review is based on the assumption the the condition is as stated in the report.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Wasn't the question...."Can I, should I, would you do accept the assignment?" Yes you can, you probably shouldn't, and no I wouldn't! That way no problem with what you reported in the review...or is that just being to simplistic?

 

[Don Clark]

8)

I received a request for a review last month. On review I found that the appraiser had completely (left out, missed) a deteriorated roof, flaking possible lead based paint visible from street on wood porch. Comps were the ONLY comparables so no problem there. however, the appraiser made an adjustment for the land that was about $30,000 too high given that ingress and egress is by a dirt road right of way. Adjustment based on acerage only. My opinion, using same comparables, was about $30,000 lower than original appraiser. AFTER the review, original appraiser did a final on a new roof that lender required. Then I was asked why I would not call the subject "average". Because, says I, based on all the original appraiser missed, I cannot do so without an interior inspection.

Well guess what! Now they want a new appraisal by me with an interior inspection. Will I accept it? You darn right I will. There is nothing in Ethics, USPAP, or professional appraisal practice that says I should not. The lender deserves to have a second opinion, and by now, I know more than most other appraisers would about the property and market. Just my HO.

Don Clark, IFA

 

[Lee SW IL]

Thank you all for your replies.

But, I have to say I was surpised that some responded would not have accepted this order.

I really still can't understand why one would not accept this order.

I replied to the lender about the current market, and the similarity of comps available, between then and now.

Thx again.