Gated Community

[J Grant]

Dale, here in Palm Beach County they will not let you in a guard gated community to do a BPO either. Maybe in Miami. I lived in Dade county and they have far fewer guard gated communities then here.

In addition, why would someone trust a review appraiser who lied to get into a community, saying they were doing a BPO when they weren't? That seems worse to me. I think a judge would rather see an appraiser disclose they could not gain access to a community ,than find out the appraiser lied to get in. Discovery of a lie would invalidate everything else the review appraiser says. If it came to trial, the judge could subpeona the guard gate attendent and they would say the appraiser lied and siad they were there to do a PBO.

 

[J Grant]

Right Mentor, but when both parties initial or initial and sign, the new handwritten langauge is bilateral agreement.

Smokey, I am with you on that one. Still, the judges or mediators or whoever is going to decide these cases will declare a winner and loser ( unless they decide both parties are so lame and incompetent that there is no grounds for a case...can that happen?)

 

[Sunshine in VA]

Sunshine qoutes the form: "No modifications or deletions to the certification allowed on FNMA 2000 3/05."

Cross that part out. If there is a clear agreement with the client to modify SOW and the disclosure is such that that the intended users are reminded of the fact that the certification was amended as agreed, please explain the problem.

The review appraiser did not cross out cert #1, nor the SOW that states that and I didn't think he could.

 

[Smokey Bear]

Like I said, use a different form. Convert it to a desk review. OR turn it down. OR get a written agreement with your client that you can cross out the certification. But signing the cert, and having your "oops I didn't view it" buried in the addendum doesn't cut it. It's misleading, which violates USPAP.

 

[Sunshine in VA]

Like I said, use a different form. Convert it to a desk review. OR turn it down. OR get a written agreement with your client that you can cross out the certification. But signing the cert, and having your "oops I didn't view it" buried in the addendum doesn't cut it. It's misleading, which violates USPAP.

That's what I believe.....the review appraiser should have turned down the assignment or reported it on another form with didn't have the visual inspection in the SOW.

Not only is he subject just a picture of a gate, but so are his chosen comparables as well. Seems not credible that he didn't actually see the subject or the new comps he utilized to disagree with the appraiser's opinion of value.

 

[TJSum]

I agree with Smoke, and like I stated with the first reply of this thread, why not just discuss the situation with the client and turn it into a desk review. That is what you would be doing anyhow if you can't drive the subject and some or most of the comps. Not sure what all the bruhaha is about. If the client insists on a field review, when access is not possible, then withdraw from the assignment until they provide that desired access. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Per the OP, if you are viewing field review reports that were done without driving the subject and / or comps, sure sounds like a misleading report to me.

Sorry I am a slow typer and agree with S VA statement above.

 

[J Grant]

It is not misleading if the appraiser states clearly in the report reason for lack of access to photograph the subject. It does not have to be "buried in the addendum".

Let's see what the courts have to say (will have to wait awhile for that one)

 

[J Grant]

The certification and the photo exhibit are two different items. The certification states the appraiser visually inspected what areas of the sujbect were visible from the street. If the appraiser drove the subject street and tried to gain access and saw whatever was visible from the street, they fulfilled the certification.

The photo exhibits are req by Fannie, not USPAP. The review appraiser has fulfilled the certification by driving the street to visually inspect what areas of subject were visible from the street. He discloses he was denied access to drive by the house and take a photo. He further states he can still produce a credible report by relying on original appraisal description, photos, MLS photos, overhead plat maps/county record photos etc.

The disclosures are make the report not misleading. Turning it into a desktop would not accomplish anything other than putting the same information on a different form. The form is used to communicate the appraisal, the form is not the appraisal itself. If a credible opinion of value can be developed and all disclosures made, the appraisal can be printed out on toilet paper and still be viable.

 

[Smokey Bear]

If the SUBJECT is veiwable from the street, in sufficent detail to determine quality and condition, then I have no problem with that. But if you can't see the subject at all, all bets are off. You don't have to be standing in front of it, but you do have to be able to see it enough to know what you're looking at. Binoculars help.

 

[J Grant]

Smokey, that is your personal intrepretation. It is not an appraisal req or a USPAP req that an appraiser see the subject, or photograph the subject in order to develop a credible report. In pre construction appraisals, the appraiser does not "see" the subject, it has not even been built yet. In a desktop appraisal, the appraiser does not see the subject. In a drive by or review appraisal, if a gate, guard, private road etc prevents the appraiser from seeing the subject, the appraiser states that, and goes on to develop the report.

If what you say can be upheld, that the appraiser has to "see" a subject on every report, then millions of appriasals from the last decade can be dragged into court and you will make a killing as a lawyer!