FHA Appraisal Audit/review - Punishment

[TMG]

What were the other three items?

Sounds like the last USDA order I did back in 2008. It was a flip that looked good on the newly painted surface, but had some problems which I disclosed and appraised at about 10% under the sales price. My comps sucked as the market was already slowing and what I had to work with needed large adjustments. So they called Skippy in from the next county over to save the sale. Of course that "Perfect" comp always closes a month after your report at an unexplainable high price.

Alan from USDA in Portland called to tell me how Skippy's report was so much better and to council me. I asked for a copy and it was cr#p. Skippy used very low adjustments and placed all the weight on that high sale. Alan continued to tell me that Skippy's report was superior because all the gross and net adjustments were smaller than mine. They used his report and closed the sale.

The subject was repossessed a year ago and now sits vacant. I hope that USDA had to eat that loss.

The other three items:

1. Not including "HUD/FHA" in the intended users statement -- my bad, but does this warrant 21 hours of coursework? I feel a warning should suffice? But it seems FHA would rather punish you and take your time and money.

2. "Comparable # 4 reported as having 3 bedrooms and 2 baths - MLS states 3 bedrooms 2.75 baths" -- the reviewer was wrong on this one, however I was not allowed to appeal.

3. Site shape reported to be "Irregular". Appraiser is required to list all site dimensions beginning at the frontage -- ok, my bad again, but the correct site size was reported, just not the actual dimensions as it was very irregular shaped. Does this warrant 21 hours of classes? $400 for the classes? and $50 to take a proctored exam for the USPAP course test?

I could see if I had been fraudulent or my values were in gross error, but this punishment does not fit the issues. FHA can find somebody else to slap around.

If you have any FHA appraisals out there, beware. A random audit could be coming your way, and the reviewers love to fault find and punish.

 

[OSU Beavers]

Sounds like the typical BS AMC stips we get every week. I just went round and round with RELS over something flagged by their broken ProQuality checker. What it finally came down to was "We reserve the right to require changes whether they are warranted or not".

Now I just got a BS stip from US Bank similar to your #4. "Available data sources reported X sqft for the subject. You reported Y sqft. Please reconcile." How the heck am I to do that if I don't know what hole "Available data sources" pulled that number out of?

So they said your only appeal was being turned in to the State Board? That is not right.

 

[CANative]

1. Not including "HUD/FHA" in the intended users statement -- my bad, but does this warrant 21 hours of coursework? I feel a warning should suffice? But it seems FHA would rather punish you and take your time and money.

2. "Comparable # 4 reported as having 3 bedrooms and 2 baths - MLS states 3 bedrooms 2.75 baths" -- the reviewer was wrong on this one, however I was not allowed to appeal.

3. Site shape reported to be "Irregular". Appraiser is required to list all site dimensions beginning at the frontage -- ok, my bad again, but the correct site size was reported, just not the actual dimensions as it was very irregular shaped. Does this warrant 21 hours of classes? $400 for the classes? and $50 to take a proctored exam for the USPAP course test?


1. HUD/FHA is an intended user and it does say in the hand book to state that.

2. 2.75 baths IS 3 full baths.

3. You have to do what you are required, in writing, to do. Those are called assignment conditons.

So yes, when taken in context with your spa problem you probably did merit a slap on the wrist. Sorry.

 

[TMG]

1. Not including "HUD/FHA" in the intended users statement -- my bad, but does this warrant 21 hours of coursework? I feel a warning should suffice? But it seems FHA would rather punish you and take your time and money.

2. "Comparable # 4 reported as having 3 bedrooms and 2 baths - MLS states 3 bedrooms 2.75 baths" -- the reviewer was wrong on this one, however I was not allowed to appeal.

3. Site shape reported to be "Irregular". Appraiser is required to list all site dimensions beginning at the frontage -- ok, my bad again, but the correct site size was reported, just not the actual dimensions as it was very irregular shaped. Does this warrant 21 hours of classes? $400 for the classes? and $50 to take a proctored exam for the USPAP course test?


1. HUD/FHA is an intended user and it does say in the hand book to state that.

2. 2.75 baths IS 3 full baths.

3. You have to do what you are required, in writing, to do. Those are called assignment conditons.

So yes, when taken in context with your spa problem you probably did merit a slap on the wrist. Sorry.

#1 is my fault, std boiler plate user statement that got past me. I know HUD/FHA should have been in there. I used to do appx 2 FHA per month, so the intended user statement addition got by me.

#2 the comp had 2 bathrooms, not 2.75 or even 3. Reviewer was WRONG.

#3 Assignment conditions did not include site dimensions. I should have put "see plat map" instead of "irregular". "See plat map" prob would have passed.


Finally, you state I warranted a "slap on the wrist". My question, what would you consider a fair slap on the wrist for my infractions?

"Slap on the wrist" they gave me:
21 hours of classes
$450 in class/test fees
One entire fri-sun weekend doing my online classes and Monday morning taking a proctored USPAP test at a city library 15 miles away.

 

[TMG]

I agree that there is part of the story not being told. Just as every homeowner thinks their house is the finest in the neighborhood and ignore the rotting handrails et al, every appraiser sanctioned by any body able to do so minimizes the supposed transgessions. My apologies to the OP if you disagree, if so, copy and paste the whole of the admonishment from FHA along with redacted copies of the reports in question before you can expect we will take your word for it. :icon_idea:

I agree with your post 100%. If I were in your shoes I would also be skeptical of any appraiser whining about a "so-called" unjustified punishment.

I would gladly scan the FHA letter and post it here, however I don't really think its necessary. All I can say, is if it ever happens to you, then you'll realize I wasn't making this up or embellishing my case. I have received many a "revision request", and I have found that calling the reviewer and working together always makes the situation better. If warranted, I have no problem letting reviewers help me make my reports better. I don't know everything, and I never will.

Best wishes to all FHA appraisers.

 

[CANative]

Yeah, it does seem like they screwed you.

Chicken***** stuff. I wonder who's in charge over there now.

 

[MEL]

TMG- Based on your story there is something really wrong with the way FHA is being run. I sure hope that the reviewer who blasted you did a full inspection at the subject in question.

 

[Deleted member 128537]

I remember about a year ago FHA was looking for FHA appraisers to do interior review audits. I figured it was just a way for FHA to try and hang appraisers. Looks like it happened.

At one time I did many FHA reports. Now it is down to a trickle. I'm kind of glad for that.

I have done lots of reviews. And I find lots of little errors. But those don't bother me. No one writes a perfect report. It's the clear violation that results in a stupid value that concerns me.

When FHA is just looking to hang people despite a credible opinion of value it's time to say goodbye. Go find some other sucker.

 

[NCkicker]

and why are we doing this for the return?

 

[Amy Perkins]

Not bracketing a spa is so minor in my market, what is the world coming to? If they are going to pick on someone it should be because there is a serious problem with the value. Bracketing is not an appraisal requirement. Am I missing something? Is there anything else you are not telling us? What kind of appraiser would require this of another appraiser? Was it reviewed by an appraiser?