Defective Paint - Fannie Mae

[CANative]

The difference between FHA and the GSEs on this issue is that FHA has a mandatory repair requirement (as an MPR) whether or not it is a safety issue.

 

[huntercharlie]

The Fannie/Freddie Forms ask specifically if there are physical deficencies or adverse conditions that affect livability - how someone can claim that chipping or peeling paint pre-1978 is not a safety issue is beyond me (IMO).

 

[CANative]

It's only dangerous if you eat the paint.

Don't make unnecessary repair conditions as this increases the cost of housing.

 

[huntercharlie]

It's only dangerous if you eat the paint.

Don't make unnecessary repair conditions as this increases the cost of housing.

True, good for the economy though - puts people to work:new_multi:

 

[CANative]

My comment "Don't make unnecessary repair conditions as this increases the cost of housing" is not one of my creations. It's a partial quote from a HUD handbook. The full quote (which I'm going by memory) is:

"Don't make unnecessary repair conditions as this increases the cost of housing without returning any value."

Or something like that.

 

[TKA524]

In my opinion if the garage is on the property, then similar requirements should apply. The whole property is being used as collateral for the loan so you would think the lender/FNMA would also want the garage to be safe. I try to give the garage or other outbuildings a little less scrutiny perhaps but if it is falling down then I would think that is something I would call for repair/demolish.

 

[sputnam]

I don't make the appraisal contingent on correcting the paint. I do state the observed condition of the paint and that the house was built when lead paint was common. What the client wants to do about it is their business. If the client wants the appraisal made 'subject to', then fine. No problem.