Landsafe Condo GLA requirement?

[Gregory Beck]

Oh i got it wrong too I thought you were on the landsafe fee appraisal list and were working for Landsafe. However you still have a problem of losing xyz funding because if you don't comply they will not get the loan closed. I hope you got paid up front because now you can say goodbye to xyz funding. Guess what? it is still the golden rule of HE WHO HAS THE GOLD RULES

 

[Reelestate]

We might be overlooking the big picture here. HVCC or not, many lenders are insisting more and more for brokers to use their blessed AMC in order to do loans with them. Part of the pressure brokers are facing to comply with this is for AMC "reviewers" to find as much as possible wrong with the broker's appraiser. After a few hassels like this most brokers will just relent and order all their appraisals through the investors designated AMC. It is a sign of the times. No offense to the OP, but by being a hard as* on this, you are just helping to bring an end to your own independence and driving more assignments to the AMCs of the world.

So what you're saying is that a Landsafe reviewer will nick pick a non-Landsafe appraisal to death in order to drive future orders to Landsafe. That way they can say, "You should have ordered it from us in the first place."

Now that makes sense to me. You all have convinced me, but are you saying that we should we bend over and sing "Moon River" to every Landsafe reviewer? Where does it end and how do we stop it?

 

[TJSum]

That is pretty much it, like others have said, those actually lending the money have the right to set many of the rules. Like I said earlier, you have to pick and choose your fights and the time to take a stand wisely, IMHO this is not one of them...

 

[Bama Bayou]

So what you're saying is that a Landsafe reviewer will nick pick a non-Landsafe appraisal to death in order to drive future orders to Landsafe. That way they can say, "You should have ordered it from us in the first place."

Now that makes sense to me. You all have convinced me, but are you saying that we should we bend over and sing "Moon River" to every Landsafe reviewer? Where does it end and how do we stop it?

Lee, I think it is just beginning and the only way it can be stopped is on an individual basis. Just don't do work for CW. Of course, the problem with that is the broker may not know who will ultimately fund the loan (if anyone eventually does). CW along with their new owner, BofA, have a pretty big market share though. We are going to have fewer but bigger players from now on.

For years, basically from 2000 to 2006, our appraisals were not reviewed with a fine tooth comb. The lessons from the late 80's and early 90's were forgotten. When they were making stated income loans about the only thing they looked at on the appraisal was the value.

The game is different now. We are going to get picked apart for many years to come. That is not a bad thing either. Some appraisers will not be able to hack it.

What I try to do, even though I know it's impossible, is to make every appraisal acceptable to any lender out there. That way no matter who ends up funding the loan you are less likely to get requests for additional info.

In the long run it actually saves time, brings in new business, and retains the old business.

I think it is the only way to survive in the current market.

 

[Reelestate]

Should we start a new thread asking if there is Landsafe review conspiracy to make all non-Landsafe appraisals automatically rejected and nick picked to death in order to influence the broker to use Landsafe for the initial appraisal order?

 

[TJSum]

I am not talking just about Landsafe, just lender owned AMCs in general, they are going to try to push this portion of the HVCC whether it sees the light of day or not... Many brokers have already caved in and complied with this policy. Like Bama said, in today's climate, any appraisal report submitted by a broker to a lender, that is not from the lenders preferred appraiser, will receive a rectal exam. Bama delivers the most useful advice, when working with a broker, do your reports to the highest standard so that you do not have to worry who the lender will be and what guidelines each will have.

 

[Reelestate]

We might be overlooking the big picture here. HVCC or not, many lenders are insisting more and more for brokers to use their blessed AMC in order to do loans with them. Part of the pressure brokers are facing to comply with this is for AMC "reviewers" to find as much as possible wrong with the broker's appraiser. After a few hassels like this most brokers will just relent and order all their appraisals through the investors designated AMC. It is a sign of the times. No offense to the OP, but by being a hard as* on this, you are just helping to bring an end to your own independence and driving more assignments to the AMCs of the world.

I am sorry to all posters here. I have seen the light and I guess I will have to prepare every report the rest of life to insure that no Lender owned AMC reviewer can ever fault me to their benefit.

EOM

 

[timd354]

You make some good points Tim. However, the FNMA guidelines are minimal standards. I hardly think it is a USPAP violation to measure the thing just because Fannie says you don't have to.
bama, please reread what I said...I never said that measuring a condo is a USPAP violation...clearly it is not. What I did say is that a reviewer who makes up his own guidelines and rejects an appraisal that meets the actual guidelines under the appropriate SOW because it fials to meet the reviewer's own personal biases has committed a USPAP violation. It is a different questions as to whether the reviewer is subject to USPAPA.

Since I don't do any work for CW, I don't know what their additional guidelines are. Someone did post ealier that they require that condos be measured. If so, the reviewer is just doing their job. It would not be their personal guidelines but additional lender requirements that go over and above what FNMA requires. That is their right. Since the OP did not know that the target lender was or would become CW, then he would not have to measure if he has reason to believe that the plat from the condo docs was reliable.
I agree with you.

I also think that you are assuming that the reviewer is an appraiser. May or not be. It they are not an appraiser they are not bound by USPAP, and therefore cannot violate it.
You are correct, I did make that assumption, but I think that assumption is probably correct....if you read post #1 of this thread, it was the reviewer was a landsafe reviewer, which means he/she is likely an appraiser.

I'm not trying to slam the OP. I just don't see how using the condo docs for the GLA is reliable. They would not be here. Maybe in FL the condo developers are completely honest and their recorded measurements are perfect.

In Maryland, the condo docs are very strictly controlled by statutue and it is very unlikely that they would not be accurate, especially since they are required to be filed in the land records and must include a certification statement from a licensed surveryor that the plat is accurate. This plat is included, by reference, in the legal description as to each condominium unit.

If the actual physical walls of the condo unit do not match the plat, then since the legal description of the condo unit is defined by the plat, not the actual physical locatiion of the walls,that opens up a whole other can of worms....it would seem, in that case, that either the subject unit is encroaching on the legally defined space of the common areas, and/or other units, or vice-versa.

 

[Bama Bayou]

In Maryland, the condo docs are very strictly controlled by statutue and it is very unlikely that they would not be accurate, especially since they are required to be filed in the land records and must include a certification statement from a licensed surveryor that the plat is accurate. This plat is included, by reference, in the legal description as to each condominium unit.

If the actual physical walls of the condo unit do not match the plat, then since the legal description of the condo unit is defined by the plat, not the actual physical locatiion of the walls,that opens up a whole other can of worms....it would seem, in that case, that either the subject unit is encroaching on the legally defined space of the common areas, and/or other units, or vice-versa.

I can see why we had a major difference of opinion on this issue. Your condo docs relative to GLA are reliable and ours are not. I have even seen high rise buildings that had two more stories than the docs showed and were approved for.

By the way I knew that you did not think it was a USPAP violation to measure the unit. It just read that way to me.

Like everything else in this business, it just depends on the circumstances. If I could depend on the GLA from the docs in the same manner as a survey (our engineering standards for surveys are pretty high) I would use them too. It would make like much easier, especially on the round buildings.

Our condos generally have about 20% more GLA on the docs and tax assessors records than they actually have.

They learned a long time ago around here that it's a lot easier to pick a yankee than a bail of cotton.