Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Huds_Harm]

The LOAN was made. You got your financing. What you didn't get was a warranty on the septic.

The loan was fraudulently made and would not have been had the appraiser not concealed multiple things.

 

[Mejappz]

The last three HUD secretaries. Two political hacks and a surgeon. What would you expect?



1. Marcia Fudge (2021 - 2022) - Appointed by President Joe Biden.
2. Ben Carson (2017 - 2021) - Appointed by President Donald Trump.
3. Julián Castro (2014 - 2017) - Appointed by President Barack Obama.

 

[Huds_Harm]

The well and septic systems were not the determining factors in your decision to buy the house; they only mattered because of the lending requirements. If you were using a conventional loan without those specific conditions, you most likely would have proceeded with the purchase.

The appraiser’s checkbox regarding the well and septic did not influence your decision to buy the house. It was a factor in securing financing, particularly under FHA guidelines, but it would not have impacted a conventional loan. This distinction is crucial in understanding the roles and responsibilities of each party in your transaction.

I did not use a conventional loan therefore the scenario cannot be used.

 

[Huds_Harm]

The last three HUD secretaries. Two political hacks and a surgeon. What would you expect?



1. Marcia Fudge (2021 - 2022) - Appointed by President Joe Biden.
2. Ben Carson (2017 - 2021) - Appointed by President Donald Trump.
3. Julián Castro (2014 - 2017) - Appointed by President Barack Obama.

Trust me the fact the current one suggested I file with the CFPB and I had to inform her the CFPB used HUD's incorrect loan defect categorization stating "there's no way the lender could have known" something that was public information to close my complaint over two years ago speaks to their competence.

 

[Raven59]

I did not use a conventional loan therefore the scenario cannot be used.

The appraiser's duty is to the lender. Your duty is to take care of your worries, actually. If this were conventional, who would you point the finger at?

 

[Huds_Harm]

If you're vested in 3% of the price of the property and you said it will cost $100,000, why not give property back to the lender. Lender will take a huge loss.
You leveraged with 3% but lender basically was buying the property for 97%.
You must really like the property to continue to find parties to compensate you.

The lender is a costless participant due to the FHA backing the loan, which breeds fraud and no incentive for a lender to verify a home meets MPR because once it closes, they get to use the CYA form "for your protection get a home inspection" to absolve them of their duties.

 

[Huds_Harm]

The appraiser's duty is to the lender. Your duty is to take care of your worries, actually. If this were conventional, who would you point the finger at?

It was not conventional.

1. APPROVAL OF FINANCING: Approval for the financing described above will be deemed to have been obtained when Buyer Approval and Property Approval are obtained.
2. PROPERTY APPROVAL: If Buyer’s lender determines that the Property does not satisfy lender’s underwriting requirements for the loan (including but not limited to appraisal, insurability, and lender required repairs) Buyer, not later than 3 days before the Closing Date, may terminate this contract by giving Seller: (i) notice of termination; and (ii) a copy of a written statement from the lender setting forth the reason(s) for lender’s determination. If Buyer terminates under this paragraph, the earnest money will be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer does not terminate under this paragraph, Property Approval is deemed to have been obtained.

 

[Fernando]

This sounds like a shakedown. Lender has deep pockets to fight your lawsuit to the end.
Appraiser has much to lose if you file complaint and lawsuit whether you're right or wrong. It can end appraiser's career for maybe a careless mistake. Thus, you want settlement money.

 

[George Hatch]

The loan was fraudulently made and would not have been had the appraiser not concealed multiple things.

The allegation of fraud attributes the error to intent.

When I review appraisals I NEVER allege intent when I find an error because I know it's almost impossible to meet the burden of proof of that motivation without an outright admission of guilt. I stick to what I can show - "the report includes this error".

Courts are not about "what is" so much as about "what we can prove".
-----------------------
Beyond that I'm not sure why you're even arguing these points with us because the judge's decision appears to be based on a matter of law; possibly already established by legal precedent. If there's an error in their decision the only remedy is via appeal.

Only an atty who is conversant with appraisal issues and who is smarter than "federal definition of as is" can provide you with an informed opinion of your chances in an appeal or in pursuit of the appraiser's Errors and Omissions Insurance.

 

[Huds_Harm]

It can end appraiser's career for maybe a careless mistake. Thus, you want settlement money.

What number of items intentionally concealed would turn it from maybe a mistake to definitely intentional?