field review

[Ben Vukicevich SRA]

L,

I read the post. He did it once was low on the review and now the lender is shopping the review around. He's clear on that review. But why do you think they are shopping a new reviewer when they already know the truth????

They don't want to know the truth. A) They can't close the loan without a concurring review-that doesn't seem likely because the poster stated the first review was in 1/2002-too long ago for that. B) The loan closed and they already know the value is over-inflated due to the initial review. If the loan was OK, they wouldn't really need another review unless it's going bad and they want some extra security via somebody else's E&O.
C) They are a broker and the wholesaler is squeezing them for a bad appraisal-not likely because the wholesaler would order the review.

Something is fishy with all the fishing going on for additional reviews. They are looking for concurrence for a reason, taking 4 months to do so. That throws a red flag to me and is why I don't do reviews.

Hey, I don't care what you charge for reviews-the more the better. You can do my share anyday........

Ben

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

I'll jump in on this one. He did a review of an appraisal for Lender A; came in $60,000 under the original; sent it in and went on with life.

6 months later the same original appraisal is sent to him for a review by Lender B.

1) I don't know why he couldn't do a second review of this original for a different lender.

2) It APPEARS that the mortgage broker shopped around for a wholesaler for that original appraisal after it didn't make it due to the first review at Lender A.. Maybe the deal closed already with lender B??? and they are now getting around to doing a review??? I had one very similar a couple of years back that did close with a different wholesale lender using the original appraisal at the grossly inflated price. I'm quite sure the second wholesaler that closed this deal never knew anything about my review that was completed for the first wholesaler.

3) It wouldn't do any harm to disclose somewhere in the second review that you had completed a review of this same original appraisal report on 00/00/00 for Lender A. I really don't see any NEED to do that though.

4) My opinion: ENJOY this easy money!

FYI: I charge as much or more as a full URAR for reviews. They take at least as much time as a regular URAR. To those of you that do 'em cheap, just STOP that!!!! Where's your pride?

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Same here, Pamela. I quote $325, tell them why, and let them decide. I lose a few reviews, but not as many as you would think.


"You must resist the dark side, not stronger, only easier" -Yoda.

 

[airphoto]

Another opinion ..

Being as suspicious of crooks (lenders and AMCs) as I am, I agree with those posts that suggest that somebody's trying to hook another appraiser with additional liability. Otherwise, the original appraisal is rapidly approaching the end of it's useful life .. why not order a fresh appraisal? I submit that that's not an option, as somebody's still trying to sell the original (potentially) too high value .. and, probably knows that it's too high ..

 

[Larry Lyke]

In order not to garbage up my own argument, I will continue with Ben's argument and simply overlook Pam's, because I'm unable to adress both in this instance without confusing me!

We're so far afield now that I'm going to rest my case (on):

In my opinion the appraiser should not do a second review on this appraisal without disclosing to the client his previous involvement. The appraiser has nothing to lose except perhaps a fee, his E&O and his license.

When this second review would come in with the same appraiser's name on it, the client would probably call and scold the appraisal company and appraiser for intending to hide the fact that this is not a new, independent opinion. Ask yourself why the client didn't go back to the first review company/appraiser.

'They don't want to know the truth' is not part of the argument. I never care how the client uses my product. For the simple reason I can't control it.

 

[Ray Ohler]

Because what I read does not make any sense. The original post, word for word stated:
<span style='color:red'>"I completed a field review in Jan. 2002 for a company that I was working for. The FIELD REVIEW in my opinion was FRAUDULENT and was about $60,000 higher in value."</span>
My question would be : HIGHER THAN WHAT? The "true" value of the property? Or are you saying that the ORIGINAL APPRAISAL was fraudulent and $60,000 high.
<span style='colorrange'>"Can I do the field review a second time and if I can do I have to disclose that I have completed a field review once before for a different company."</span>
My Answer would be : I believe so. It really doesn't matter whether you signed the review or not. You know you did it and you're not the only one.
<span style='color:green'>"If I can complete it, It is going to be very easy to complete as I am just going to clone the OLD APPRAISAL. But I want to make sure that I can complete it."</span>
Old appraisal? or OLD REVIEW? And I ASSUME that everyone else ASSUMED that the poster meant "ORIGINAL APPRAISAL" in place of "FIELD REVIEW".

However, based on my reading of the FIRST POST in this string, my answer would have been: If you performed a "review" of an appraisal and concurred (either you personally or coerced by a supervisor) with a value that was $60,000 high, do not attempt to "re-review" the appraisal and now CUT the value by $60,000. If I didn't read the post correctly, obviously I have to go back to first grade and start over.

 

[Larry Lyke]

Ray --

You're right.

The first post should have been straightened out before we each launch our own dissertation.

I based my opinion on working backwards from the poster's question. and tried to figure out the logical path of events.

 

[Ben Vukicevich SRA]

L and Ray,

I'm also assuming that he meant appraisal instead of field review in his first sentence as when you read through the post, it plays out to be the original appraisal, not the field review being $60,000 over. To me, the lender is just shopping the field review to find concurrence and does not know he's working for this new company where the review has now ended-up

All I can say is, when I did reviews and I came across BS like that, the review stopped right there. I call the client, say there is nothing to review due to numerous deficiencies in the report and that you need a new appraisal to straighten the "mess" out. You know it's going to be controversial at that point so it's best to know everything about the property, including an interior inspection, if you are dumb enough to proceed further and to also CYA. They usually go away at that point which is what I really want them to do.......

Ben

 

[Ray Ohler]

Ben,
I had a client back in 95-96 that ordered a "field review". After my FIRST mistake of accepting the order (there were SO many factual errors from Line 1 of the report through to the last line (and I am not exaggerating), I wound up having to write a book, called the client back and said NO MORE. Told them, you need new appraisals PERIOD. They then requested that I do new appraisals. I did somewhere in the range of 300 of them over the next 6 years. Was a nice little account. However, due to the high number of them being "junk bonds", they stopped doing business in PA and closed their local office. I began to be known as "the deal killer". Now I do mostly litigation support work except for two decent clients who want "real numbers" OR at least "reasonable numbers". Worst appraisal I looked at was ABOUT 500% overvalued. "Really" worth in area of $7,000, "appraiser" appraised it at $40,000. My client didn't take the loan and it went to foreclosure (thru to sale) in less than a year which means MAYBE one or two payments were made.

 

[Lee SW IL]

Message deleted