Comments you cant do without

[Carnivore]

"To enable use of the most proximate similar comparables sales it was necessary to transgress some fannie mae recommendations/guidelines."


Guys and Gals, this is the best catch all I have found to cover: distance, gross/net, sale date, bracketing, and any other thing an underwriter can come up with with an overly imaginative brain. The beauty of the statement is that it fits in the limited space of the COMMENTS ON SALES COMPARISON section 2nd page URAR.

 

[Farm Gal]

Andrew and all:

While I agree that such comments are needed when you exceed guidelines, I personally think boilerplate 'I had to go roun the rules' with no further explanation is absolutely nfire: reprehensible and is precisely the practice about which the readers of reports complain! DUH!!!

How about instead indicating which guidelines you 'bent or broke' and why! That can ususally be summed up in a sentence or two which is actually applicable to the appraisal problem at hand rather than useless boilerplate! :evil:

A X month search for comparables in the described neighborhood indicated no sales able to bracket the subject for ____ and none which had the subejct's _____. IT was necessary therfore to ____(exced time/ proximity/size parameter preferences)___.

Sheesh, you had to THINK it out, why not write it out! 10 seconds maybe?

 

[Carnivore]

Lee Ann,

A reader of my report will see for themselves that I have exceeded some guideline, So I think repeating that observation is redundant and insulting to the reader. Stating what I did and why is more important.

You comment above repeats the obvious (you cant find similar comps in the hood) then you splained about exceeding limits blah blah blah. because you had too.

Seems like You and I said the same thing, difference was you just took the long way around to do so.

 

[Doug Smith SRA]

Today appraisers probably need the following until the software vendors include it on form appraisals. State laws vary, however, regarding seal etc. Wording may vary to suit.

This appraisal report contains digital signatures. The software program used to generate this appraisal report contains a digital signature security feature which utilizes personal passwords to protect digital signatures. Each appraiser has sole personalized control of affixing their digital signature to a report. The appraisal report can not be modified without the permission of every appraiser who has signed the report. Electronically affixing a signature to a report carries the same level of authenticity and responsibility as an ink signature on a paper copy report.

 

[Farm Gal]

Andrew:

If you DID actually explain what you did then fine!: to me the two line answer sounds (as I am sure mine did to you ) redundant and UN-explanitory.

I often see reports where exactly a phrase like yours is put on those lines, on some report that exceeds five or more guidelines: with no further discussion as to why!

I kind of look harder to see if there is a reason :? Specially when there appear to be three or more sales on the block with the same features :twisted:

My one size fits blanks example may have sounded bad, but beats the heck out of those two lines with no further explainin'. For example I usually tell them that there were only three houses of similar size and they were all wreck/REO's but the subject and every other house in the immediate area appears well maintained :roll: , blah blah. so this is why I went six blocks north.

As to the asserttion I 'take longer to get there' ... um brevity isn't my forte? but I try?!?!?

 

[Judy Whitehead (Florida)]

This is one of my faves.....under site comments:

No adverse easements or encroachments were observed upon inspection. Utility and/or drainage easements are not considered adverse. No illegal or nonforming uses were observed. This report assumes that there are no adverse soil or subsoil conditions.

And my new favorite.....got it from this forum:

The final opinion of value was determined through a reconciliation of all previously determined and collected data. Neither the client's or the borrowers' estimate of value has any relationship to value as defined herein nor any relationship to the appraisal process as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

What I think Lee Ann and others are losing sight of is that, I believe, we are talking about "SUMMARY" reports not self contained nor restricted, nor oral. If have to go into detail because some processor cannot understand the basic concepts or cannot do the math, too bad. They ordered a summary report that is what they get. Tell the processor to kick it upstairs to someone that knows how to read and interpret the report.

 

[George Hatch]

Reference the highest and best use comment, here is my version of it:

The existing use is among those uses deemed legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible; and represents an adequate expression of the concept of Highest and Best Use as improved. It is also our opinion that there are no legally permissible uses that would economically justify the removal of the existing improvements.

Assuming the property use actually is the highest and best use for the site as improved, this is a fire-and-forget summary of the highest and best use analysis.


George Hatch

 

[Farm Gal]

Frederick:

True, but your state directives (and concerns) may vary from mine...

My last USPAP class had several board members present. If I hear it from the horses' mouths, and then get a re-up in the next state newsletter: an article written by the then board chair that v-e-r-y clearly indicates that they look for specifics, wall then, specifics they are going to get! (from ME at least). Hence my take on the matter. I think it wise to learn what YOUR state wants to see.

I have on occasion made a report Restricted Use, and said "The rest of the story is in my casefile". Not a cop-out if warrented for the sake of brevity. USPAP AND Board compliant :twisted:

I still think it is sloppy to use a blanket "there weren't none mo bettah, used the best I found" with no further explanation of why.

Back on track (sorry for sidelineing discussion)
I will henceforth zip my lip.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Lee Ann,
I understand and can relate to your position. I am perhaps more fortunate in that my main clients have real live licensed appraisers reviewing the reports. Very rarely do I need to add or clarify anything in writing, some times just a verbal conversation is all that is needed. It is always the lesser clients that cannot understand the form and it's contents (i.e. addendum) because it is a non appraiser or non underwriter that is making the call for some change. Just yesterday I got one such call. I had made my report subject to an extraordinary assumption (condos constructed on a land lease 60 years with 20 years gone) and the processor insisted that I state in the addendum the repairs that were needed and if there were no repairs needed then I should not check the subject to box. With this type of client you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.