Judge Rules Appraiser/Lender Owe no duty of care

[Surf Cat]

Does the general public determine the property qualifies for the loan?

No. But the general public typically does investigative due diligence to make sure what they're buying is worth it.

It's the same thing when buying a used car. Prior to plopping down the $10 to $15k, the astute buyer will have it checked out by their mechanic to make sure that it will get them to work and their kids to school safely and reliably.

With a house, most people's most expensive purchase, the above, aforementioned scenario quadruples in importance.

You would think by now, with over 900 posts, that one would figure out that appraisers are not going to implicate themselves or throw one of their peers or themselves under the bus for your case.

 

[George Hatch]

I have no problems whatsoever with saying an appraiser didn't meet the requirements of their assignment. If/when that's actually the case. I don't cover for anyone and I don't expect anyone to cover for me. Everyone makes mistakes, myself included. We cannot acknowledge that reality without also attributing errors to whomever made them.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

You would think by now, with over 900 posts, that one would figure out that appraisers are not going to implicate themselves or throw one of their peers or themselves under the bus for your case.

Its not even about throwing under the bus. She is just hoping she can trick a judge into her narrative which is filled with misrepresentations.

The way OP has acted though I have a feeling there is a much different version of the events than what we are being told.

Either way the appraiser provided an appraisal to the lender to assist in making a lending decision. The OP is trying to make the case that the lender should of denied her loan, its a weird claim to make. None of the experts assisting her with the due diligence to buy the property made her decide to withdraw from buying the property.

 

[George Hatch]

Based on her conduct under Q&A it's apparent that the OP intended for us to operate on a more limited amount of relevant information. It's one thing to not initially anticipate at the outset of a thread the kind of info an appraiser might ask in a situation like this; vs quite another thing to stonewall and otherwise operate in a non-responsive manner when asked directly for the clarification and elaboration.

The OP doesn't owe us any information, but by the time we get to selective disclosure then she also isn't arbitrarily entitled to our presumption of her credibility, either. As appraisers we understand that the property owners and even their representatives lie to us by either omission or commission when it suits their purpose. It ain't personal on their part, they mostly just want what they want. But by the same measure, asking for clarification and elaboration isn't personal either. The "argument to motive" that the OP is attempting to run on us is characterized as one of the forms of logical fallacy. We are not acting immorally when we are attempting to further understand the situation.

 

[George Hatch]

Its not even about throwing under the bus. She is just hoping she can trick a judge into her narrative which is filled with misrepresentations.

The way OP has acted though I have a feeling there is a much different version of the events than what we are being told.

Either way the appraiser provided an appraisal to the lender to assist in making a lending decision. The OP is trying to make the case that the lender should of denied her loan, its a weird claim to make. None of the experts assisting her with the due diligence to buy the property made her decide to withdraw from buying the property.

I don't know if her case is going anywhere else or not, but if it does the mere existence of this thread will provide her opposition with a wealth of reasoning and discussion, both in agreement and disagreement with some of her allegations.

The internet is forever.

 

[Artemis Fowl]

Been wondering when someone would point that out.

 

[George Hatch]

I didn't do it, someone else brought it up several hundred pages back.

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

A little different fact pattern. According to the description it looks like that property has a well and septic, too. Being newer shows that the county was still allowing 20 years after the OPs home was developed.

With this larger/newer property it looks like the topo includes a level terrace above the flood plain area in the rear, with pics in the listing showing retaining walls for about 40ft behind the structure. The rest of the parcel extends into the flood plain and all the way into the centerline of the creek itself. So maybe the septic install is located further from the structure, or maybe they installed it in the front.

Besides, the question we'd want to ask is about the financing itself. I don't know how anyone does that in TX without calling brokers and asking. There are properties located on both sides of that waterway. A 5yr check on the listing history would reveal whether brokers were warning about septic systems or not. That's how a local appraiser would normally get clued into asking about those specifics, if they're seeing it being mentioned in the MLS listings.

If an atty can demonstrate that FHA was or wasn't adhering to the location element of their MPR then there would be no need to assume what they would have done in this situation. For all we know, when FHA responded it wasn't their problem that may be the result of them knowing from their own conduct in the past in that area that they weren't enforcing that element of their own policy. Or not - maybe they have been scrupulous about their MPRs in this situation and their position is that the borrower had no right to assume FHA would have protected her from her own decision making.

The old listing is on realtor.com. This is all Zillow does, use public information

 

[Surf Cat]

The OP is trying to make the case that the lender should of denied her loan, its a weird claim to make.

Yes....based on the appraiser's incorrectly checking city sewer as opposed to septic, cropped photos of a fence and deck, and other MPR compliance items.

Some how in all this....."the appraiser" is supposed to know "the distance" of the well to the septic was out of compliance for FHA funding. Even though several entities tied to this transaction didn't even know where the septic tank was. This is the basis of the lawsuit.

What's even weirder is that she's not looking for answers or understanding ( she admitted this). She's looking for admission of guilt and or wrongdoing of the appraisal profession. That the whole process is flawed and against borrowers.

If the FHA appraiser would have followed FHA mpr's, the loan wouldn't have been approved for this house.

Bayou refuses to comprehend that the distance of the well to the septic is not within the appraiser's scope of work. So the mis-checked boxes and cropped photos surely implicates the appraiser.

Beyond weird....

 

[Zoe]

I don't know if her case is going anywhere else or not, but if it does the mere existence of this thread will provide her opposition with a wealth of reasoning and discussion, both in agreement and disagreement with some of her allegations.

The internet is forever.

Well it is not good for the homeowner. I don't blame appraiser. Too many people up the chain to blame.