Landsafe Condo GLA requirement?

[Couch Potato]

USPAP SOW? The Scope of Work rule in USPAP requires one to meet client expectations. It is incumbent on the appraiser to discuss with the client what is needed. The SOW is not something the appraiser, USPAP or Fannie Mae dictates, it is an agreement between the appraiser and the client to meet the client's need. That may or may not include meeting the standards of a third party.

 

[Kevin Mc]

I
My question is, should I charge a re-inspection fee because I have to go back and measure?

My question is why didn't you measure it in the first place? Far be it from me to defend Landsafe, but seriously are you kidding me?If you didn't measure it first time there you are at fault. Due diligence Lee.

 

[timd354]

USPAP SOW? The Scope of Work rule in USPAP requires one to meet client expectations. It is incumbent on the appraiser to discuss with the client what is needed. The SOW is not something the appraiser, USPAP or Fannie Mae dictates, it is an agreement between the appraiser and the client to meet the client's need. That may or may not include meeting the standards of a third party.

Its hardly unreasonable for an appraiser to think that a Fannie Mae approved lender ordering an appraisal for a conforming mortgage loan who did not communicate any additional requirements or guidelines supplementing or modifying the Fannie Mae appraisal guidelines would have different expectations other than receiving an appraisal report that conformed to Fannie Mae guidelines. I would bet a month's pay that if the appraiser for this assignment called the client before performing the appraisal to discuss the SOW, the client would have agreed to an SOW that the appraisal had to meet Fannie Mae guidelines.....the appraisal was likely ordered by some loan officer or processor who would not even know what the appraiser was talking about when he called to discuss the SOW. I am guessing that the lender did not realize that Fannie Mae guidelines did not require the appaiser to actually measure the condo, and they changed the SOW after the fact.

That being said, I have no idea why an appraiser would not measure a condominium unit that is the subject of the appraisal....not measuring the property is not good appraisal practice.

 

[Em Tee]

That being said, I have no idea why an appraiser would not measure a condominium unit that is the subject of the appraisal....not measuring the property is not good appraisal practice.

Ditto..... why would you not measure? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I have a Landsafe reviewer telling the mortgage girl that he won't complete his review unless I measure and verify GLA on a 1073 condo appraisal. I tried to explain to her Fannie Mae inspection rule XI 204.1, but I went ahead and added extra comments about GLA being taken from recorded documents etc.

Then the reviewer shoots back this email:

"Looking at the most recent submitted report, it appears that the appraiser has still not measured the subject.

As stated in my previous emails, this simply is not acceptable. If you could find out whether or not the appraiser is going to measure the subject, we can then move forward with completing this review assignment."

And you want to know the punchline to this fiasco? ALL FOUR COMPS ARE IDENTICAL FLOOR PLANS IN SUBJECT BUILDING!


My question is, should I charge a re-inspection fee because I have to go back and measure?

I'm surprised that when you physically inspected the Subject you did not measure it.

There is no requirement within the USPAP that you measure the improvements, but if you rely upon a public record source for the GLA and such is erroneous, I believe it can contended that your peers would measure the improvements and that your actions were deficient.

If your Client and any other Intended User has a requirement (and, you should be enquiring of the Client's and other Intended User's requirements when you are engaged for the assignment) that the improvements be measured and GLA calculated, then I believe that you are responsible for having measured the Subject.

Personally, because I believe it is good appraisal practice to personally measure the improvements, if I were you I would return to the property ("gratis") and measure...particularly if you wish to remain in the good graces of your client.

 

[Deleted member 77547]

I think many of us read your post as saying you did an appraisal for Landsafe and now a Landsafe reviewer was making you go back out to measure.

I don't think "many of us" misread anything from the original post. Many of us read the same thing because that's exactly what was stated. It didn't come to light until somewhere around post 30 that it was someone other than the original client that wanted it measured. Additionally, the original post said Landsafe wanted them to "measure and VERIFY " GLA, perhaps, against recorded condo docs?

I am still befuddled as to why it wasn't measured in the first place. I'm gleaning from the original poster's comments throughout this thread that he doesn't think he should/need/have to measure as long as he has recorded condo docs. And, yes, I read the part where he doesn't want to be sued and it isn't a Fannie requirement, and the point about the SOW yadda yadda. But, I'm stiill perplexed as to why one wouldn't measure as part of their overall due diligence.

 

[Mztk1]

Let me just add that although Fannie guidelines state the living area from the plat can be used for square footage, #2 in the statement of limiting conditons and assumptions states that the appraiser has provided a sketch with approximate dimensions. So even if you have relied on the plat or PR for the living area of the unit, you still have to provide a sketch with approximate dimensions. If you did not, you did not meet your scope of work requirement.

Personally, I have relied on PR living area in the past especially when the PR living area and my measurements differ considerably due to different measuring styles (a lot of PR in my area is from the outside for condos), but I have always included an original sketch with original measurements.

 

[Kevin A. Spellman]

The condominium reports I produce state that the authority for the GLA. The recording documents are the authority for the GLA and not the appraiser. I scan in the floor plan and also provide an APEX floor plan based upon the recorded documents. I do measure some units for the basement area, decks, porches or a garage in the event the recorded documents include these areas. The term what would your peers do is not for me; too many amateurs are in our industry.

 

[Couch Potato]

I don't think "many of us" misread anything from the original post. Many of us read the same thing because that's exactly what was stated.

I did not use the word "misread" in my post. That was purposeful on my part. The original post has sufficient ambiguity in its wording to cover both interpretations.

On the other hand, I don't think there is any ambiguity on the thoughts of whether it is normal practice for residential appraisers to measure a condo.

Comment: The scope of work is acceptable when it meets or exceeds:

• the expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments; and
• what an appraiser’s peers’ actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment.

Since Fannie guidelines cannot override USPAP, I don't see where just using a plat for the GLA would be an acceptable scope of work.

 

[Mztk1]

Comment: The scope of work is acceptable when it meets or exceeds:
the expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments; and
what an appraiser’s peers’ actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment.

It is circular though Couch. The expectations of the parties who are regular users of the 1073 would be that the report conforms to Fannie Guidelines, and my peers actions would be to write the report in conformance to the guidelines. You can't beg the question any better than that.

What Kevin says he does sounds acceptable to me if he is providing the measurements on the Apex sketch as shown on the plat. That is all one certifies to have done. My peers would do what they have certified, maybe more, but not less. I don't see how using the plat is in violation of USPAP.