How should lenders use CU findings to inform conversations with appraiser's (new from Fannie Mae)

[Deleted member 77547]

They can't just copy and paste raw CU output and demand that the appraiser figure it out or explain. They can use the output to analyze potential problems or concerns and articulate their concerns.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what they're doing. I had a report come back with a "revision request" because CU showed my GLA was different than another report previously submitted and asked that I comment on that. When I submitted the original report I had it clearly stated (twice) that the living area as reported was based on field measurements by the appraiser and differed by the county assessor by 18ft due to rounding by the assessor. The client bounced the report back because CU flagged it that the GLA was "materially different" than a prior report.

So I replied to the email request that I cannot comment on an alleged appraisal report done by someone else. That they'd have to supply all documentation to back up CU's claims. They replied that they don't have any information, that CU doesn't supply them with anything and would I please open up the report, give it a new file number and signature date and state at the top of the comments page that I cannot comment on the findings of the alleged appraisal report whose information differs from my findings. True story.

 

[J Grant]

It's not all gloom and doom. Obsolescent, your GLA sounds very good, measured, and only 18 sf off assessor. Why is it materially different than a prior appraisal? The other appraisal must have got it wrong, if you got it right. Which means THAT appraiser's report can be flagged as incorrect over at Fannie if that appraiser has no explanation of their sf, or if other appraisals keep showing it as wrong. To be materially different it has to be different enough to matter, not 18 sf.

You did the right thing by stating you can not comment on another appraisals work since you have not reviewed it. And then re state how you arrived at your measurements and GLA.

We don't have to get defensive and call it an alleged appraisal and demand documents . CU does not provide documents to lender, it provides feedback. Simply state you can not comment on work you have not seen. Keep it simple.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

IMO, CU is the work of a flipping genius and will weed out the idiots and cheaters, improve the skills of the marginally trained, and in the end result in better valuations.

You speak in jest I presume

 

[Deleted member 77547]

It's not all gloom and doom. Obsolescent, your GLA sounds very good, measured, and only 18 sf off assessor. Why is it materially different than a prior appraisal? The other appraisal must have got it wrong, if you got it right. Which means THAT appraiser's report can be flagged as incorrect over at Fannie if that appraiser has no explanation of their sf, or if other appraisals keep showing it as wrong. To be materially different it has to be different enough to matter, not 18 sf.

You did the right thing by stating you can not comment on another appraisals work since you have not reviewed it. And then re state how you arrived at your measurements and GLA.

We don't have to get defensive and call it an alleged appraisal and demand documents . CU does not provide documents to lender, it provides feedback. Simply state you can not comment on work you have not seen. Keep it simple.

I know they don't provide documents to back up their CU differences. My interaction with this long-time client was to point out the ridiculousness of the request when it was already covered prior to my sending it in. They knew I couldn't comment on it and agreed it was a crazy request. The point of my post was to show by example that CU issues are coming back without the client doing their own due diligence first. Its easier and faster for them to bounce it back to the appraiser for comment rather than spend the time as they're expected to do by Fannie. I guess that cuts into their turn times...I dunno.

 

[TRESinc]

I know they don't provide documents to back up their CU differences. My interaction with this long-time client was to point out the ridiculousness of the request when it was already covered prior to my sending it in. They knew I couldn't comment on it and agreed it was a crazy request. The point of my post was to show by example that CU issues are coming back without the client doing their own due diligence first. Its easier and faster for them to bounce it back to the appraiser for comment rather than spend the time as they're expected to do by Fannie. I guess that cuts into their turn times...I dunno.

so do as you did and bounce it right back to them. if the explanation is already contained in the original report there is no need to go any further. borrowers have to submit sales when they dispute an appraisal, why should the lenders be treated differently? you say i am wrong, well show me where. if you cannot i can't make any changes.

 

[The Bob]

IMO, CU is the work of a flipping genius and will weed out the idiots and cheaters, improve the skills of the marginally trained, and in the end result in better valuations.

I think there is real value in CU, too. The problem is Fannie is dealing with idiot lenders. Probably about the time they issue their 10th letter clarifying CU, that will begin to dawn on them.

The lender doesn't give sh*t about quality. Why should they? Where's the proof? They farm out their appraisals to the lowest bidder with the fastest turn time, or they keep the process in house since its a cash cow.