Is it me or the other guy?

[b r]

Received a call from a local bank that wanted me to do an appraisal that was going to secondary market. This was a newly built home, situated on +/- 20 acres, small horse barn, detached garage, and three small storage buildings. Not your typical Secondary Market property. I live and work in a very rural part of Ky. There are properties like this around however, sales of this type property is limited at best. The lender assurred me that this secondary lender would take this property.

However, upon my inspection, there was a mobile home, complete with all utilities, and two additions. The homeowners had lived in this mobile home while building thier new home. I contacted the lender, who is a friend of mine, and told him about the manufactured home. He called his supervisor who asked the lender to ask me if I would "forget the mobile home and not include it" I told my lender friend that the best I would do would be to do a Hypothetical Condition that the mobile home was present but not to include in the valuation. The lender relayed this to his supervisor who said this was not what he wanted. The homeowner said that he is willing to sell the mobile home to remove it. I still stood my ground that I could not "ignore it"

So the lender called me back and said that if I would not ignore the mobile home that he would get another appraiser who would. I said more power to you that I would not do that. As stated before, I would do a Hypothetical Condition but that was it. Well, I charged the bank for a trip charge and inspection fee and walked away. The lender called today and said that another appraiser did in fact perform the appraisal. I told the lender "What if the secondary lender wants a field reveiw before and if the homeowner sells the manufactured home?" If I performed a field review and seen a home and a mobile home, I would state it in my review.

Am I missing something?

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Not missing a thing Brad, except maybe a client that cares nothing about your license and livelyhood. Good for you to stand your ground!!!

 

[Blue1]

brad,

In my market, mobiles such as the one you describe, often go with the property when sold and have no positive nor negative contributory value. That's why I always disclose their presence and try to find comparables with similar type mobiles. More often than not, these mobiles do not contribute to value at point of sale. Totally ignore it? NO!! You are on the right track. You'll probably have your license longer than others that ignore such improvements.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

If the mobile has no value, why not mention it, and say no value given for this appraisal because......

Just like an unpermitted addition. No value.

 

[Farm Gal]

Brad:

Many of us have had similar situations:

What rules does the subject county apply? Is the temporary placement of a mobile while 'permenant residence under construction' permitted use?

Were they planning on resusing the septic/sewage waste system? what were the costs of removing the 'extra' residence and related improvemnts if not permitted after completion? Does the area permit trouses to exist on the property after completion as storage or other use as long as the happy homeowners don't rent it out?

I beleive it is not out of line to go forward with the assignment, but use the hypothetical condition perhaps worded a little differently than you indicated in your verbal response:

"Subject to the H.C. that the mobile and all associated apurtenances are removed and re-graded to a visually acceptable final grade and that the cost of the rehabilitation not exceed $$"

It's HOW you say it not that you don't say anything at all... except in that I just might have NOT called the client on this one and just finished the report.... :roll:

Sometimes attitude is everything.

Sometiems it's a LOT easier just to walk away also :wink:

 

[b r]

To Lee's response, the mobile would indeed have a value, and in my mind that warrants mentioning.

To Lee Ann's response, this was not a tempoary placement of a mobile. The mobile was on the land when purchased, then later the owners purchased the home. Hence, the mobile is on the tax card. The county has no building, zoning or planning codes/laws; so anything goes.

The secondary lender WILL NOT accept "Subject To" or Hypothetical; they just wanted me to ignore it all together, had to be "AS IS" One of thier underwriting policies is there can not be two residences on same parcel. I told them that the mobile is visible in the photos. they wanted me to go back and take pictures at angles that did not show the mobile and complete "AS IS" or they would get someone else.

 

[Mountain Man]

I too would have told the client to take a flying leap. I don't and won't lie for ANYONE. This is not just a job in passing, it is my career....... and other than grilling burgers, is the only thing I know how to do well. :lol:

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

Don't go back and take pictures at an angle so the mobile (was it built prior to June 15, 1976 or is it a manufactured home built to HUD building code?) doesn't show! The photos taken by the field reviewer of your report will NOT take photos at an angle. The second home is a physical fact and the borrower just needs to find a lender that can handle two homes on one parcel as long as that is in compliance with the local laws and zoning. Sounds like the borrower needs to change lenders!

 

[Farm Gal]

Brad:

In that case: fire the client, with prejudice! :evil:

Never to darken your doorstep again, and all that ....

What JERKS!!!

This one ought to go into "Lousy Lenders, Tales from the Script..."
They all seem to have a copy to read from :wink:

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If you know who the appraiser was, send the pix of the MH to the state board and ask them to investigate it.