Drive by appraisals

[Delta85]

I still don't see what the problem is. I always advise my clients that a complete interior/exterior inspection is recommended for a better understanding of condition and a more confident opinion of value. If they insist the exterior only product is the one they want I document everything in the body of the report to include what I could and could not inspect, what data must come from town records only, and what my recommendations were to the client. If this is what the client wants and they fully understand the limitations of the report and have been advised as such by the appraiser then THEY now own the liability IMO.

If my doctor advises me to take steps to lose weight and stop smoking and yet I continue to dine on junk food and smoke 3 packs a day is he liable when I have a stroke? Should he discontinue me as a patient and not make money treating me because I fail to follow his professional advice?

 

[residentialguy]

I still don't see what the problem is. I always advise my clients that a complete interior/exterior inspection is recommended for a better understanding of condition and a more confident opinion of value. If they insist the exterior only product is the one they want I document everything in the body of the report to include what I could and could not inspect, what data must come from town records only, and what my recommendations were to the client. If this is what the client wants and they fully understand the limitations of the report and have been advised as such by the appraiser then THEY now own the liability IMO.

The problem that some are saying is that if you use Extraordinary Assumps, then you should check box 4 that speaks of EA, and not box 1, the as-is box, since you really don't know what it is for sure.

 

[23Degrees]

I still don't see what the problem is. I always advise my clients that a complete interior/exterior inspection is recommended for a better understanding of condition and a more confident opinion of value. If they insist the exterior only product is the one they want I document everything in the body of the report to include what I could and could not inspect, what data must come from town records only, and what my recommendations were to the client. If this is what the client wants and they fully understand the limitations of the report and have been advised as such by the appraiser then THEY now own the liability IMO.

If my doctor advises me to take steps to lose weight and stop smoking and yet I continue to dine on junk food and smoke 3 packs a day is he liable when I have a stroke? Should he discontinue me as a patient and not make money treating me because I fail to follow his professional advice?

This makes perfect sense and why I view these things as a bear trap waiting to spring on some unlucky appraiser. The problem is the form IMO and it would not surprise me if these scenarios can come back to bite the appraiser regardless. Do you make any extraordinary assumptions when you complete the reports in this manner and if you do do you check CB4? If you have MLS for one of the comparables that displays an updated interior with high quality materials, how are you evaluating that relative to the interior of the subject which you have not seen and only have the borrowers "pinky swear" that the interior is in average or better condition (which does not satisfy certification 10). I understand, you are "assuming average" or "assuming good" based on the owners comments. And if it turns out the place was a dump and needed to be gutted and your report made these assumptions without checking CB4 there could be a problem.

Provide a typical scenario where one completes a 2055 report on the 2005 form and does not make use of an extraordinary assumption with regard to the interior and then we might be getting somewhere. Or convince me that one can add EA's and HC's to the 2055 or 1004 and still check CB1 and I'll go quietly back into the woodwork.

 

[residentialguy]

I don't take any chances. I make the homeowner double pinky swear. :new_all_coholic:

The problem with CB4 is that it's requiring an interior. The appraiser is not requiring an interior. It is based on the EA of the as is info gathered is true.

Now go back in the woodwork, 23. I have more posts then you, so I trumph anything you say.




.

 

[23Degrees]

Yes, an EA incorporated in contradiction to the form language. And I agree with the inference of a totally ridiculous situation that this form has created unless it is in fact appropriate to add the EA with CB1 checked. That is really my only misgiving here. But OK - I have to yield to a double pinky swear so back to the woodwork I go.

 

[Delta85]

I just disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose throughout the report what I could and could not do and that the form being used was specifically requested by the client. I also disclose that I have recommended a complete interior/exterior inspection and that the client maintained that they only wanted an exterior inspection from the street.

The bottom line is that I'm not turning the work down. If the client, even after receiving my professional recommendation to upgrade their report options, still chooses this "drive by" option then they have been fully and fairly warned and I will give them the best report I can given the limitations I am facing. Clearly if there are issues with the home I am not aware of the client, and not I, should be the one the deal with the aftermath.

 

[residentialguy]

I just disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose throughout the report what I could and could not do and that the form being used was specifically requested by the client.

...and then you LIE and DECEIVE at the end of the report by not checking the box that says it is based on extraordinary assumptions. Evil Appraiser ...mmmahhhaaahaha :new_asthanos:

 

[Michigan CG]

..............................Now go back in the woodwork, 23. I have more posts then you, so I trumph anything you say.




.

Is that how it works here?

 

[Michigan CG]

If appraisers are going to accept these assignments they have to realize that there is more risk.

I will do a 2055, but the fee is the same as the 1004.

(Dang it....Favre just threw an interception.) m2:

 

[Mike Boyd]

I just disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose throughout the report what I could and could not do and that the form being used was specifically requested by the client. I also disclose that I have recommended a complete interior/exterior inspection and that the client maintained that they only wanted an exterior inspection from the street.

The bottom line is that I'm not turning the work down. If the client, even after receiving my professional recommendation to upgrade their report options, still chooses this "drive by" option then they have been fully and fairly warned and I will give them the best report I can given the limitations I am facing. Clearly if there are issues with the home I am not aware of the client, and not I, should be the one the deal with the aftermath.

BUT........guilty or innocent you could still get involved in a lawsuit. Seems like several E&O carriers have disclosed in their policies that drive by reports will not be covered. I think there have been been multiple posts in the AF about this.