FHA-new purchase agreement amendment

[DWiley]

I wasn't confining my observations to the scenario outlined in the OP. My dissension was over the concept of "customer service", being a "good businessman" and doing whatever those people that were sending you the check wanted you to do. I think that is a bad precedent to set and I have seen the potentially fraudulent aspects of it in action over this very issue.

Being a good business person involves discerning scenarios that could facilitate fraud from scenarios that do not do that.

 

[Mike Ault]

Being a good business person involves discerning scenarios that could facilitate fraud from scenarios that do not do that.

The solution that was advocated on here involved retroactively putting whatever price your client found convenient on the front page of the appraisal after it had already been communicated. That is a potentially fraudulent situation more often than not. That's when everybody goes back and pads their fees with higher closing costs at the expense of the ill informed borrower. Or a well-informed straw purchaser. It also makes it more difficult for the rest of the appraiser population that likes to play by the rules.

 

[DWiley]

The solution that was advocated on here involved retroactively putting whatever price your client found convenient on the front page of the appraisal after it had already been communicated. That is a potentially fraudulent situation more often than not. That's when everybody goes back and pads their fees with higher closing costs at the expense of the ill informed borrower. Or a well-informed straw purchaser. It also makes it more difficult for the rest of the appraiser population that likes to play by the rules.

What post promotes that? The posts I saw deal with a contract being revised downward to the amount of the appraised value, as described in the OP. I don't see anyone saying it is OK to revise it with just any old number.

 

[CGinMN]

Today is Everything I Don’t Understand Is Fraud Day on Appraisersforum.com.

 

[Mike Ault]

This scenario has been playing out form a long time. To me, it was a simple business decision.

So, I would put it wherever they wanted, with the appropriate disclosure regarding the change in the contract, make sure I also still included the analysis of the contract in place on the effective date, update the signature date, and move on.

Others are free to take another approach. Some do draw a hard line that page 1 of the URAR is somehow sacrosanct and not to be changed. I never understood that, but to each his own.

I think this post could be easily misconstrued into exactly the scenario I described.

 

[DWiley]

I think this post could be easily misconstrued into exactly the scenario I described.

It does not say put whatever they want It says put it wherever they want in a report. Slight difference

 

[glenn walker]

Mike you are obsolete

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

It used to be quite important to clients who were bent on mortgage fraud to control what was on the front page of the report. They claimed it was for the sake of having a "clean file" that would sail through their investors underwriting when in fact they didn't want any evidence that the sales price had been manipulated after the appraisal was submitted. As long as you would change the value on the front page they could deal with any pesky addendum's you might throw in detailing who did what and why. Customer service does not include enabling fraud and that is why the wise appraiser leaves the original sales price untouched on the front page.

I create a new report (not a revision of the existing report) that makes contract changes that also are described in the "ENDING ADDENDUM: CLIENT CONDITIONS" that starts with "This report with a filename of xxxxxx.(c1) and a signature date of xx/xx/xxxx has been created in response to the following client condition: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

The solution that was advocated on here involved retroactively putting whatever price your client found convenient on the front page of the appraisal after it had already been communicated. That is a potentially fraudulent situation more often than not. That's when everybody goes back and pads their fees with higher closing costs at the expense of the ill informed borrower. Or a well-informed straw purchaser. It also makes it more difficult for the rest of the appraiser population that likes to play by the rules.

Is a straw purchase illegal?

 

[Mike Ault]

Is a straw purchase illegal?

Frequently. One trip to the "Doc Shop" and you can insert a borrower that will never make a payment and default on that $150,000 mobile home that was only worth $50,000 when it closed. Leaving the rest to be divided up. Straw borrower typically recieves the "short straw" portion of the proceeds.