Are we required to obtain permits?

[CANative]

The answer lies in the specific Municipality's Building Ordinance.

meanwhile:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145687

No it doesn't.

 

[Lee Lansford]

The answer lies in the specific Municipality's Building Ordinance.

meanwhile:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145687

Mike, with this we must part ways as to discussing this issue any further.

If you are suggesting--as I am understanding your words--that the appraiser is obligated to investigate whether or not the 1998 installation of the roof-covering of the house was via the permit process, I conclude that we will not find agreement.

 

[CANative]

Mike prefers to pontificate rather than participate.

 

[23Degrees]

Mike, there are those that have argued that we are never responsible for matters of a legal nature despite the presence of the complete phrasing of statement 1. It seems you are arguing for a full bore search of all paperwork despite the presence of the same statement 1. At least that is how I am also understanding your recent posts. I think Statement 1 gives us some protection, don't you?

If one shows up at 123 Main St. and finds a 1,500 square foot house with no ADU's in the backyard, no bootleg additions, no second kitchen and public records indicate that at 123 Main St. there is a 1,500 square foot SFR - why in the world start a permit conundrum with regard to the roof, the number of outlets, the heater or anything else? Barring something blatantly obvious that causes the property to deviate from what records say is there why not just rely on the protection provided by statement 1 and move on? And if one does find an anomaly that could undermine Statement 1, the prudent move would be to focus on that particular element and not grow ones responsibility to include if the roof was done with a permit 15 years ago or if every outlet was put in place with a permit.

And to those on the other front of this argument. The only dispute I think we are down to is when the "illegal" box is checked with regard to zoning compliance in an "as is" report within some (or possibly many) jurisdictions. No disputes regarding valuation, no argument that somehow the appraiser is responsible for always checking every single last permit, or anything else that I can see or recall at this point so to future posts that keep bringing this stuff up the answer is "that is not what the discussion is about, or at least it shouldn't be". I think I'll call it quits on that front until someone completely makes my day and logically explains how one can check "legal" for the zoning compliance question in an "as is" report on a property built without permits (total bootleg) within a jurisdiction where zoning code clearly mandates the need to have them, a question I have asked in three posts now.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Mike, there are those that have argued that we are never responsible for matters of a legal nature despite the presence of the complete phrasing of statement 1. It seems you are arguing for a full bore search of all paperwork despite the presence of the same statement 1. At least that is how I am also understanding your recent posts. I think Statement 1 gives us some protection, don't you?

S1 ......"except for information he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing this appraisal." - which then falls under SOW and Assignment Conditions requiring research and a statement asserting a supported opinion of Subject property's Legal, LNC or Illegal (improvements and/or uses) status as of an Effective Date of appraisal.
_____________

"If one shows up at 123 Main St. and finds a 1,500 square foot house with no ADU's in the backyard, no bootleg additions, no second kitchen and public records indicate that at 123 Main St. there is a 1,500 square foot SFR - why in the world start a permit conundrum with regard to the roof, the number of outlets, the heater or anything else? Barring something blatantly obvious that causes the property to deviate from what records say is there why not just rely on the protection provided by statement 1 and move on?"

There isn't any "protection" under Statement of L.C. #1 - see above.
____________

"And if one does find an anomaly that could undermine Statement 1, the prudent move would be to focus on that particular element and not grow ones responsibility to include if the roof was done with a permit 15 years ago or if every outlet was put in place with a permit."

Requisite research yields either:

a. no permits for roof replacement as of the EDA OR 15 years earlier. Legal.
b. research indicated a BP and a C.O. would have been required 15 years earlier, records subsequently missing, misfiled, destroyed, not available; Value Opinion based on EA of legally permissible use subject to Municipal confirmation.
c. permit and C. of O. required 15 years ago, open permit was recorded now expired without required C.O., existing improvement Violation remains curable. Market Value Opinion based on H.C. subject improvements represent a legally permissible, transferable us as of EDA subject to Municipal confirmation.
d. "outlets" electric, plumbing, foundation, etc. are covered under a municipal C.O. - IF required by a municipality, one is, or is not recorded. If unavailable see c. above.
______________

"And to those on the other front of this argument. The only dispute I think we are down to is when the "illegal" box is checked with regard to zoning compliance in an "as is" report within some (or possibly many) jurisdictions. No disputes regarding valuation, no argument that somehow the appraiser is responsible for always checking every single last permit, or anything else that I can see or recall at this point so to future posts that keep bringing this stuff up the answer is "that is not what the discussion is about, or at least it shouldn't be".

"I think I'll call it quits on that front until someone completely makes my day and logically explains how one can check "legal" for the zoning compliance question in an "as is" report on a property built without permits (total bootleg) within a jurisdiction where zoning code clearly mandates the need to have them, a question I have asked in three posts now."

Wouldn't hold your breath too long on your last paragraph.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Mike, with this we must part ways as to discussing this issue any further.

If you are suggesting--as I am understanding your words--that the appraiser is obligated to investigate whether or not the 1998 installation of the roof-covering of the house was via the permit process, I conclude that we will not find agreement.

Same answer in post 185 above. Thanks for participating in the discussion in an adult, professional manner as always.

 

[CANative]

If you appraise with USPAP in one hand and excerpts from the zoning and building code in the other you don't have any hands left to do the appraisal.

The market does not do business this way, neither should the appraiser.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Same answer in post 185 above. Thanks for participating in the discussion in an adult, professional manner as always.

Peace, my Irish brother.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

For those interested, the liability for Appraisers existed then, and exists today. Though a bit dated, interesting reading on topic

Appraiser's Liability For False Or Negligently ... - JurisPro.com

www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-7525536-article-1695.pdf - Cached - Similar
States have also begun legislating real estate appraisals. A typical example is
the Lancaster-Montoyo Appraisal Act which became operative January 1, 1988, ...

Especially "Who may sue" on Page 27 (last paragraph relates to GSE Cert. 23) and the emboldened highlight on
Page 28 - re Building Codes

----------------
AND another oldie, but goodie:

Appraisal Journal, Appraisal Institute 1995
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Appraisal-Journal/17015336.html

_______________

JAN. 2013 FNMA selling guide - APPRAISAL GUIDELINES

Examples of Unacceptable Appraisal Practices
The following are examples of unacceptable appraisal practices:
• development of and/or reporting an opinion of market value that is not supportable by market data or is misleading;
• development of a valuation conclusion based either partially or completely on the sex, race, color, religion, handicap, national origin, familial status, or other protected classes of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property;
• development of a valuation conclusion based on factors that local, state, or federal law designate as discriminatory, and thus, prohibited;
• misrepresentation of the physical characteristics of the subject property, improvements, or
comparable sales;
• failure to comment on negative factors with respect to the subject neighborhood, the subject
property, or proximity of the subject property to adverse influences;
• failure to adequately analyze and report any current contract of sale, option, offering, or listing
of the subject property and the prior sales of the subject property and the comparable sales;
• selection and use of inappropriate comparable sales;
• failure to use comparable sales that are the most locationally and physically similar to the
subject property;
Part B, Origination Through Closing
Subpart 4, Underwriting Property
Chapter 1, Appraisal Guidelines, General Appraisal Requirements
Printed copies may not be the most current version. For the most current version, go to the online version at
https://www.fanniemae.com/singlefamily/originating-underwriting 513

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Brand new Concurrent thread this morning - a good "case study" LIVE assignment:

http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?t=193021