C5 at inspection. Lender wants appraisal changed

[CANative]

If the property was in C5 condition on the effective date of value nothing that happens after the effective date will change that.

It seems like what you are saying is that the OP should have called it C4 based on whatever repair conditions he made. If that's the case then this is merely correcting an error in the original report.

Is that about the size of it?

So, Greg:
Are you saying that
A. if the subject is in C5 condition, and
B. if the report is made subject-to repairs, and
C. if, as a consequence of those repairs, the subject would be in C4 condition, and
D. if the report, subject-to repairs, indicated that with the repairs the subject remained in C5 condition, then
E. The report shouldn't change the original condition rating from C5 to C4?

That is the crux of my question.
I could care less what the 1004D says or doesn't say.
All I ask is for clarification on if the subject-to repair requirement resulted in the as-is C5 condition rating being transformed into a C4 condition rating with the repairs.
If that is the case, and the original report indicated C5 with repairs, that's an error. That can (and should) be corrected... no time machine or extra thinking needed.
I also said that, even with the repairs, if the subject-to condition in the original report wouldn't change (it was a C5 without the repairs, and remains a C5 with the repairs), then nothing should be changed.

:new_smile-l:

 

[hastalavista]

Try post #4, then tell me what apparently happened

"Nothing was repaired. In it's former and apparently current condition it was C5. The building was not "adequately maintained". If the pool was filled with water the property is still in C5 condition and "features obvious deferred maintenance". "All major building components are adequately maintained and are functionally adequate" does not apply since nothing was repaired. :eyecrazy"

I'm not clear on that, but let's presume you are correct: the OP went back and visually inspected the property (why he would need to, I have no clue... since someone else did the 1004D; that I did parse out!).

But none of that matters.
What matters is this:
If the original report was made-subject to repairs, then did the original report's condition reflect the subject-to repaired condition?
We know (or are presuming) it was a C5: with the repairs, subject-to, would it have been a C4?
If yes, change the report's condition rating to C4 if it was rated C5.
If not, don't change the report.
But changing the original report's condition rating has nothing to do with what the condition is "now", because the original report's condition rating was based on whatever the subject-to repairs were and should have reflected the condition-rating that would have resulted had the subject-to repairs been made as-of the effective date (which is sometime in the past, not now).

It really is that simple.

 

[dfalliaux]

One man's C5 is another man's C4.

My C5 Corvette is WAY different than my C4...No mistaking those two :icon_mrgreen:

 

[hastalavista]

If the property was in C5 condition on the effective date of value nothing that happens after the effective date will change that.

True: but the report was made subject-to repairs based on the HC. The subject may, as-is, have been in C5 condition, but based on the HC, it may have been valued as-if it were in a C4 condition. It wasn't in C4; we know that. We are talking about the condition rating of the original report matching whatever the condition would have been with the hypothetical condition that was used.
Describe what exists; that's C5.
Value based on the HC; I still don't know if that is C4 or C5!

It seems like what you are saying is that the OP should have called it C4 based on whatever repair conditions he made. If that's the case then this is merely correcting an error in the original report.

Is that about the size of it?

Yes.

 

[CANative]

I wish you hadn't separated my responses. I get what you're saying and agree. The problem here is the OP hasn't been really clear so far.

 

[hastalavista]

I wish you hadn't separated my responses. I get what you're saying and agree. The problem here is the OP hasn't been really clear so far.

Sorry; I took your response as two seperate thoughts; the first was what seems to be the disagreement or the different view of the problem (at least, from my perspective), and the second thought is an agreement of the problem.

Edit to add: And, I probably didn't have to bold my comment, either! :blush:

 

[CANative]

I forgot to put a :icon_mrgreen: in my last reply.

It does sound like the OP should have put a C4 on the property if he was making the appraisal conditioned on repairs (if indeed the repairs would have resulted in a C4 property.)

If the OP corrects the report based on this assumption he should do some additional narrative work in the report to better reflect what is going on.

 

[hastalavista]

The problem here is the OP hasn't been really clear so far.

Well, he did say

...but my head is swimming in a sea of CE units and I could use the feedback.

So I'll cut him some slack. For all I know, he spent 6-hours in a attached/detached garage seminar.

OP, when you come back and if you feel like it, please clarify if (a) the original report's subject-to repairs should have/would have resulted in a C4 condition rating, (b) if the report used some other rating, and (c) if the change the lender is requesting is to have the original report match the HC condition, or if the change is something else.

Thanks

 

[MRB]

Subject to should have included repairs to bring it to C4. The LO's work around before packaging up and sending off the loan is to ask that you believe the credibility a contractor paid a 100 bucks to say everything is A-OK and have you believe your liability regarding any needed repairs for C4 is gone.

 

[TRESinc]

Try post #4, then tell me what apparently happened

"Nothing was repaired. In it's former and apparently current condition it was C5. The building was not "adequately maintained". If the pool was filled with water the property is still in C5 condition and "features obvious deferred maintenance". "All major building components are adequately maintained and are functionally adequate" does not apply since nothing was repaired. "

Yep everybody sees what they wanna see, and reads what they wanna read, it's a travesty of Harry Nisson's Harry Nilsson Narrates, "The Point":Chapter 7 - YouTube

I'm not clear on that, but let's presume you are correct: the OP went back and visually inspected the property (why he would need to, I have no clue... since someone else did the 1004D; that I did parse out!).

But none of that matters.
What matters is this:
If the original report was made-subject to repairs, then did the original report's condition reflect the subject-to repaired condition?
We know (or are presuming) it was a C5: with the repairs, subject-to, would it have been a C4?
If yes, change the report's condition rating to C4 if it was rated C5.
If not, don't change the report.
But changing the original report's condition rating has nothing to do with what the condition is "now", because the original report's condition rating was based on whatever the subject-to repairs were and should have reflected the condition-rating that would have resulted had the subject-to repairs been made as-of the effective date (which is sometime in the past, not now).

It really is that simple.

once again i agree with denis and he posted what i was going to, only earlier.