According to Fannie Mae, the purpose of the 1004MC form is to provide transparency for the conclusions reached in the market trend section of the report (which can be interpreted to mean those conclusions presented on page one of the URAR).
The conclusions prior to the 1004MC form were simply stated as a check mark, and data was seldom provided for how the conclusions were reached. In general, appraisers were always pressured to check stable, sometimes increasing, but never declining, or an oversupply, etc., so historically that is what all appraisers did. The 1004MC is data provided to prove page one of the URAR. One can interpret it as page one being for the neighborhood and the 1004MC being for the specific market, but an argument can also be equally stated that that is not the intent of the form. Here is the Fannie Mae introduction to the form.
https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2008/0830.pdf
On the report that is being reviewed, it specifically states that the appraiser did not use a resale with the same view, etc., and made across the grid adjustments to the resale; that sounds suspiciously to me like the appraiser used a new construction sale that bracketed it. I don't know, I do not have a copy of the report.
There are parts of the review that straight out sound like a person doing the review does not know Florida. For instance "C. Block" is a standard exterior description by appraisers in the state. From the central part of the state to the south, many people believe the bigger indicator in value for the exterior is not what coats the house, but what lies beneath it. Stucco on block is superior to stucco on wood frame to some people, and the real comparing is the concrete block vs frame. Hence, that is what they prefer to report. On a house that is vinyl over frame, these same guys will put "Frame" instead of Vinyl. You may not like it from Arizona, but it is a locally accepted practice.
Also, using ranches for a two story is not unusual either. And the conclusion reached for the time it took to sell, saying it is obvious that one stories are preferred, is based on a person with very limited knowledge in the area (one sale). The SARA with 20 years experience appraising Florida I'd presume, is well aware by report after report that the two stories do compete equally in most markets. Couch is correct on that front.
The $20,000 pool adjustment, though to some may sound high, is actually a typical adjustment in most Florida markets and can be supported by sales in almost any market time in and time out. I don't know this particular market, but a reviewer with knowledge of the area would, more than likely, find the adjustment acceptable knowing Florida.
As far as the AC needing to be replaced, i.e., I'd assume not working, since this is an FHA report, the report would have to be based on the hypothetical condition that the HVAC system worked properly (we have heat pumps in Florida 9 out of 10 times, and the heat and the air are intricately linked). If, however, the AC was working, then it is working. I'd have to see it before I made a judgment.
I can conclude two things on the report, 1. the original appraiser is struggling with the 1004MC form; and 2. the reviewer is overstepping his knowledge base and should not have gotten involved except perhaps to come on here, find a Florida appraiser who covers that area, and ask as a favor if they'd look at the report.
I merely pointed out your comments on the report displayed total ignorance of the Florida market, which rendered you incompetent to review the appraisal, and other Florida appraisers agreed.
