Closed Sale After My Inspection Date

[J Grant]

"I have had this happen a few times. If it was the best comp. I went back and looked at the exterior of the subject again and changed the effective date, if not I sill showed it as a pending sale as of the effective date."

This post, early in the thread, is the topic, not whether an appraiser had to go back to a house to re measure or take another photo etc. If an appraiser has to go back , usually they keep the first date as the effective date because that is when they were inside and outside the house to inspect it, the second trip is just to complete something not finished on first trip . But that still is not the topic, it was introduced by Res Guy as another excuse to fudge on the effective date. The issue is not about unable to complete an inspection due to weather etc, it is about intent to deceive, change the effective date of interior and exterior inspection to reach a goal. If a "best comp" closes after eff cate (presumably to make a higher value), appraiser is willing to go back drive by house and change eff date, but if a comp does not close to make a goal of value then appraiser leaves original, actual int and ext inspection as the effective date. So the effectrive date is up for grabs, depending on if it makes a value target or not.

The effective date of interior ext inspection was June 19. Then 2 days later a sale closes, so appraiser does a ext look June 21, and changes the effective date June 21. If you guys do that, do you disclose you performed a prior appraisal service on the property? Not to disclose it is a USPAP violation. If you make a second trip X days later to create a new effective date, you have to disclose you performed a prior service on the subject property (the first inspection) within the past 3 years. .

Perhaps a smart Borrower or RE agent if they get hold of the appraisal will remember you were actually there to meet them for the int and ext inspection on June 19 and question the eff date on appraisal, or perhaps not and you can "get away with it". But getting away with something or doing it because that is the best comp still leaves it as intent to deceive about effective date was reason for second trip out, noting to do with completing an original inspection due to weather or a photo . And then there remains the pesky disclosure of prior service...

 

[TRESinc]

If you guys do that, do you disclose you performed a prior appraisal service on the property? Because if you don't, that is a USPAP violation and misleading.

once again you are wrong. it's not a prior service, it's a continuing service. until i sign the report that service has not been completed. if what you say is true they every single report in the world would have to disclose "prior services" unless the appraiser inspected AND completed the report on the same day.

 

[J Grant]

"I have had this happen a few times. If it was the best comp. I went back and looked at the exterior of the subject again and changed the effective date, if not I sill showed it as a pending sale as of the effective date."

This post, early in the thread, is the topic, not whether an appraiser had to go back to a house to re measure or take another photo. If an appraiser has to go back , usually they keep the first date as the effective date because the return trip is to complete something not finished on first trip . But that still is not the topic, it was introduced by Res Guy as another excuse to fudge the effective date. The unworthy is not about unable to complete an inspections on one date, it is about intent to deceive, aka moving effective dates around to achieve a value objective.

The original inspection was June 19. Then 2 days late a sale closes, appraiser does a second ext inspection on subject property June 21, and changes the effective date June 21. If you do that, are you disclosing that you performed a prior appraisal service within past 3 years on the property? Lack of disclosure of first inspection as a prior service within 3 years would be USPAP violation .

Perhaps a smart Borrower or RE agent if they get hold of the appraisal will remember you were actually there to meet them for the int and ext inspection on June 19 and question the eff date on appraisal, or perhaps not and you can "get away with it". But getting away with something or doing it because that is the best comp still leaves it as intent to deceive about effective date was reason for second trip out, noting to do with completing an original inspection due to weather or a photo . And then there remains the pesky disclosure of prior service...

 

[Mark K]

I think anyone with even a shred of common sense would understand that multiple viewings/inspections of a property during the same appraisal assignment does not constitute "prior service".

 

[J Grant]

Really? Ask your state board about that. Pose a question to AF FAQ USPAP about that. It is disclosure of ANY service prior to the acceptance of assignment...a new effective date would mean a prior service to that effective date.

 

[hastalavista]

Really? Ask your state board about that. Pose a question to AF FAQ USPAP about that. Perhaps USPAP put the prior service disclosure to catch this kind of garbage. It is disclosure of ANY service prior to the as of effective date on the subject property within the past 3 years.

(my bold)

No need to ask anyone. Just a need to read the USPAP:



The prior service bell doesn't toll based on the effective date. The prior service bell tolls when one accepts the assignment.

I think anyone with even a shred of common sense would understand that multiple viewings/inspections of a property during the same appraisal assignment does not constitute "prior service".

Agreed. Prior service is an assignment-thing. Not an inspection-thing.

 

[J Grant]

You are correct, and I changed it just prior to your posting. But it still creates a grey area of compliance (imo) about prior services , and what the actual dates were pertaining to inspections made and effective dates, when sales closed relating to as of eff dates etc.

I suppose it comes down to intent. Creating multiple inspections for the sole purpose of establishing a later effective date to put in a closed sale would be for the purpose of making the value align with or reach the new closed sale price. Imo is is manipulating assignment conditions to achieve a predetermined goal or target...would be interesting to see how a state board or buy back would deal with it.

 

[hastalavista]

You are correct, and I changed it just prior to your posting. But it still creates a grey area of compliance (imo) about prior services , and what the actual dates were pertaining to inspections made and effective dates, when sales closed relating to as of eff dates etc.

Just to be clear, your assertion remains (IMO) incorrect regarding prior services:

Really? Ask your state board about that. Pose a question to AF FAQ USPAP about that. It is disclosure of ANY service prior to the acceptance of assignment...a new effective date would mean a prior service to that effective date.

(my bold)
I've accepted the assignment. I've had no prior services whatsoever.
I inspect the property on Monday.
I go back and inspect the property again on Wednesday.
The inspection on Monday does not constitute a "prior service" because all the inspections are related to the specific assignment.

Effective date, inspection date, report date: None of those dates are relevant to the prior disclosure rule.
Assignment acceptance date: That is the only date that is relevant to the prior disclosure rule. And note that if known, disclosure to the client needs to be made prior to the assignment is accepted.

 

[J Grant]

Okay, relating to prior services then, appraiser would not have to disclose. But it still does not change the intent ( reason) the second later effective date was created after initial inspection original date. Returning to a property to finish measuring/take a photo, nearly every appraiser retains original effective date ...(they said on thread yes, I do, do you? ) The first inspection date is when the inspection was done for purposes of the valuation. A return trip is to complete something not able to do on first trip a photo did not come out, rain stopped measuring etc.

But deliberately returning days later, acting like first inspection never happened and making a new effective date just to accommodate a closed sale because doing so would change the value...seems a gray area. If the later closed sale does not change value, then why is a new effective date created to accommodate it?

Some said if newer closed sale is a "best comp", they create a second, later effective date, otherwise they leave first date stand. I'd bet $ if the newer closed sale lowers the value they don't run out to make a new effective date!! . Only if it raises the value I assume . Is that the purpose of establishing the effective date as same date of inspection?

 

[Deleted member 134708]

Effective date 07/01/17 for the subject and it's value.

Writing report 07/05/17

On the sales grid your date of data sources is 07/05/17. You state 1 data source as MLS.

Sale closed 07/02/17.

If you say it's pending aren't you lying? Your data source shows closed on 07/02/17.

Why is there 3 dates on a 1004?