Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Dublin ohio]

She submitted an FHA offer and scheduled her own home inspection. As most home inspections do, the inspector flagged numerous items that she added in an amended sales contract for the seller to have fixed. The listing stated the property was well and septic, however the seller, who was an investor, purchased the home as an estate sale therefore did not know its location, nor was it on the survey. She asked to have the tanks pumped in order for the seller to locate it. It was located weeks after her home inspection and left uncovered in the home’s front flower bed less than 10ft from the home’s front door prior to appraisal for the appraiser to observe.

Just reposting the op doesn't make it any clearer. Why can't you just give a straight answer for once.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

None of that is to say the appraiser gets a free pass for their errors, particularly if there are indications of significant errors of omission or commission or possible violations of the consumer's rights; but the appraiser's relationship is with the lender. It is within this context that the consumer's status to the appraiser-client relationship is that of a 3rd party.

The purpose of the appraisal was to fund the loan and the 3rd party got their loan, I assume. What is the aggrievement for the 3rd party?

Also I'm curious if the appraiser made no mistakes and/or misrepresentations (which would be an issue for the lender or HUD), what would of changed?

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Just reposting the op doesn't make it any clearer. Why can't you just give a straight answer for once.

It does seem a lot of drip drip drip, I remember old posts about this where its like pulling teeth to get the details. Very cryptic.

 

[Huds_Harm]

Just reposting the op doesn't make it any clearer. Why can't you just give a straight answer for once.

How much more clear can it get? The previous sale was an estate sale therefore the seller did not know the systems location at the time of my inspection, nor was it on the survey. It is also abundantly clear the appraiser was either grossly negligent in marking multiple items did not exist, and or pressured by the lender/AMC/seller to make sure the property came back with zero "subject to" items.

 

[Huds_Harm]

The purpose of the appraisal was to fund the loan and the 3rd party got their loan, I assume. What is the aggrievement for the 3rd party?

Also I'm curious if the appraiser made no mistakes and/or misrepresentations (which would be an issue for the lender or HUD), what would of changed?

What would have changed, is the property is not big enough to meet minimum distance requirements between septic and well even with repair so I would not have been allowed to purchase this home and would have purchased another home without a $100,000.00 repair bill.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

How much more clear can it get? The previous sale was an estate sale therefore the seller did not know the systems location at the time of my inspection, nor was it on the survey. It is also abundantly clear the appraiser was either grossly negligent in marking multiple items did not exist, and or pressured by the lender/AMC/seller to make sure the property came back with zero "subject to" items.

Whoa not on the survey, perhaps the surveyor is at fault too!

I don't understand why you care so much about the "subject to" items and you are cryptic about what they were. I take it your home inspector did not point these things out or your realtor? It comes off as trying to find someone not dotting their I's and crossing their T's because you don't like something totally unrelated. We see this a lot when the opinion of market value is not enough to get the loan desired.

 

[Huds_Harm]

I don't understand why you care so much about the "subject to" items and you are cryptic about what they were. I take it your home inspector did not point these things out or your realtor? It comes off as trying to find someone not dotting their I's and crossing their T's because you don't like something totally unrelated. We see this a lot when the opinion of market value is not enough to get the loan desired.

Did you even read the article? The subject to items are listed and I take it you are not aware that a home inspector does not verify the home meets FHA minimum property requirements.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Did you even read the article? The subject to items are listed and I take it you are not aware that a home inspector does not verify the home meets FHA minimum property requirements.

So after the septic was uncovered. The home inspector did not come back and you had no other type of inspection to the septic.

 

[Fernando]

Did you even read the article? The subject to items are listed and I take it you are not aware that a home inspector does not verify the home meets FHA minimum property requirements.

Did you read the home inspection carefully. There are a lot of disclaimers also protecting liability of home inspectors.
Areas in which they have no access, inspector recommends further investigation.
Usually when home inspection is done, buyer should be at property and have inspector show and explain their concerns and their limitations of what they can or cannot inspect.

 

[George Hatch]

How much more clear can it get? The previous sale was an estate sale therefore the seller did not know the systems location at the time of my inspection, nor was it on the survey. It is also abundantly clear the appraiser was either grossly negligent in marking multiple items did not exist, and or pressured by the lender/AMC/seller to make sure the property came back with zero "subject to" items.

It's looks like there are probably grounds to allege negligence, but the intent element of an allegation of fraud will be difficult to establish unless someone comes up with an email or other communication indicating to such an intent.

If you were a lender and you were aware this property would not fit this particular lending program then proceeding to do so otherwise just to make a deal would become an insanely risky decision on their part. A lender has no incentive to knowingly take that risk, and neither does the appraiser. "Negligent" means the appraiser didn't realize their error.