Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[jay trotta]

I am not suing for a failed septic system. I am suing for a property that did not meet FHA minimum property requirements working or not.

I'm not sure what you mean as to why it failed nor how to determine when. Problems occurred 3 months later.

There was not an official septic test since the location was unknown until weeks after my home inspection.

I asked for the tanks to be pumped to make the seller locate it and naively thought if problems were revealed at that time of maintenance the seller would have been required to disclose.

I did have a septic company come fill the tank to ensure it was draining properly.

This does not negate the fact or absolve the appraiser from their duty to disclose the fact the property was septic and well. (not saying they should be)

Had that been done the following was required per the AMC's checklist on this appraisal.

View attachment 89193

So how were those Q&A answered by the AMC ? Now you're looking at the review process, different.

Per the first line; not suing for the septic issue, then where does the $100,000 (septic) expense come from

(IMO-) negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury


Sorry, you got all caught up in this entanglement, the only advice is, now you have the experience & knowledge to know before hand, the due diligence you need to perform and not take anyone else's word.
All the best to you.

 

[Huds_Harm]

So..... that explains the exorbitant cost which everyone here thinks is for the septic system when in reality, the $100k is for damages and negligence by (in your opinion) the appraiser.

Since the aforementioned items we're done "after the fact", the only avenue is to go after the fumbling, bumbling, don't know how to fill out a report, AMC appraiser.

Is my hypothesis correct?

The costs are to replace the septic system, move the water well and tunnel and reroute all plumbing to the new tank only.

The inspection was not done "after the fact" so your hypothesis is wrong.

 

[Huds_Harm]

So how were those Q&A answered by the AMC ? Now you're looking at the review process, different.

Per the first line; not suing for the septic issue, then where does the $100,000 (septic) expense come from

(IMO-) negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury


Sorry, you got all caught up in this entanglement, the only advice is, now you have the experience & knowledge to know before hand, the due diligence you need to perform and not take anyone else's word.
All the best to you.

The costs are to replace the septic system, move the water well and tunnel and reroute all plumbing to the new tank only.

google well and septic on less than an acre

 

[Huds_Harm]

So how were those Q&A answered by the AMC ? Now you're looking at the review process, different.

They were bypassed because the appraiser concealed the facts.

 

[Surf Cat]

Unless this was determined on those properties they were NOT eligible

Evidence that the ground surface is effectively separated by an impervious strata. This may be supported by a well driller’s log or acceptable substitute. Acceptable substitutes are a subsurface evaluation letter from either the local Water Management District or Health Department or a letter from a qualified well installer provided it clearly shows data which would otherwise have been revealed by the well driller’s log. The underwriter must insure the well driller's log (or acceptable substitute) denotes an apparent impervious strata. If this information is not available, the property is NOT eligible for HUD/FHA mortgage insurance.

It appears you're very versed in this "now".... but did you go to the planning/ building department prior to the purchase to review the properties permits, plans, lot lines, easements, well surface evaluation, and or septic service records?

Did the appraiser in their report list the above items as part of their scope of work?

 

[Surf Cat]

The inspection was not done "after the fact" so your hypothesis is wrong.

Quit sidestepping! Which inspection was done prior to the purchase? Prior to signing the documents?

We found out that the home inspector did not know where the tank was.... so it wasn't them.

So was it the company who pumped the tank? Or, was it the company who filled the tank?

How did you find out that the property needed a new septic system and a new well?

Since my hypothesis is incorrect, that means "you knew" about these issues "prior" to the signing of the contract. Yes?

 

[Mike Ault]

Forgot about Cuomo being Sec. of HUD at that time. But to be honest, Ithought the VC sheet was a better approach, Spelled it right out. The current system depends too much on interpretation and individual judgement.

The problem with the VC sheet, was that it gave appraisers the impression that those were the only items they were responsible for checking. If it wasn't on the VC Sheet, it didn't get mentioned, and lots of noncompliant FHA reports were produced as a result.

 

[Mike Ault]

Many municipalities are extremely strict in regards to septic systems. If a reputable company came out and pumped it, it would have to be reported to the local building department along with the septic's status of being up to code.

I believe you said you were in Texas? I post from my cell phone and cell phones don't give poster's locations for some reason. Maybe Mike Ault can chime in on that one.

Is my hypothesis correct?

Most of the well and septic situations I have run into are for properties which located outside of any "municipality" with a building or code enforcement department to report to. Actually, I have never heard of a "septic tank status" being reported by someone who pumped one out. Not doubting that is a commonplace occurrence in California, though.

 

[Carnivore]

So how were those Q&A answered by the AMC ? Now you're looking at the review process, different.

Per the first line; not suing for the septic issue, then where does the $100,000 (septic) expense come from

(IMO-) negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury


Sorry, you got all caught up in this entanglement, the only advice is, now you have the experience & knowledge to know before hand, the due diligence you need to perform and not take anyone else's word.
All the best to you.

Due diligence is a crucial part of the real estate buying process that allows buyers to investigate a property before closing on the sale. It's the time between an accepted offer and closing, and it gives buyers the opportunity to gather information and inspect the property to ensure they're getting what they're paying for. Due diligence also helps buyers' lenders feel comfortable funding the purchase.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The buyers/borrower many times do not receive a copy of the appraisal until at closing and often after closing or not at all.

Side Note: At one time it was common practice in my area for lenders to require a well and septic Inspection. They even would want a a Survey. The Real Estate Selling Brokers often took care of that . This is what I recall from a long time ago. Some time after that the lenders stopped doing that.

 

[Huds_Harm]

It appears you're very versed in this "now".... but did you go to the planning/ building department prior to the purchase to review the properties permits, plans, lot lines, easements, well surface evaluation, and or septic service records?

Did the appraiser in their report list the above items as part of their scope of work?

NO AND NO