Landsafe Condo GLA requirement?

[Reelestate]

My answer to the mortgage broker today

"I measured the condo and will send updated report soon. I just want you to understand that my report was "acceptable", it just doesn't adhere to Countrywide's personal criteria. The Landsafe reviewer should have told you that Landsafe and Countrywide have "extra" requirements and the appraisal under review, although complete and accurate, is not acceptable because it does not meet "their" stricter guidelines.

What Countrywide and Landsafe consider Standard Operating Procedure is their personal preference, which is OK, but to be technically honest here, the Landsafe review appraiser should have performed a "Field Review" and measured it himself, since his criteria are different than the Fannie Mae Scope Of Work guidelines that we all work under."


I dare any of you persnickety posters to blow a hole in that statement.

 

[Mztk1]

Quote: It all comes down to how much you care about your mortgage broker's business. If it is a good client, then go the extra mile so they get the loan with their preferred lender. Charge them if you need, otherwise, or forget it and don't do a thing.

Jim, it goes back to the age old argument about scope of work. The mortgage broker is shopping the deal and hasn't a clue about appraisal requirements of his funding source because he doesn't know who it is at the time. In the interim, we have delivered an appraisal to him that meets FNMA requirements (according to our interpretation AND because he again has no clue). Then here come the stips supposedly from the end lender via the broker. We re-visit the report that we have already furnished thereby starting the clock running again, and the time invested by us in the report increases by 40%. For the same fee because you can bet your first born that you will never collect additional. By re-opening the report and investing the additional time, how much different is that than dealing with a cut-rate AMC? I don't see much.

I don't disagree with this at all. I said something very similar in an earlier part of this thread. You and I Tony have been pretty much on the same page.

Value a relationship with a mortgage broker? How much do you think he/she values the relationship?"

There are some relationships between broker and appraiser that are closer than others. Family, friends, neighbors, long term professional relationships. I do not work with relatives nor with neighbors but I know the mortgage brokers I have worked with in the past care about and value the relationship I have with them and them with me.

 

[Mztk1]

My answer to the mortgage broker today

"I measured the condo and will send updated report soon. I just want you to understand that my report was "acceptable", it just doesn't adhere to Countrywide's personal criteria. The Landsafe reviewer should have told you that Landsafe and Countrywide have "extra" requirements and the appraisal under review, although complete and accurate, is not acceptable because it does not meet "their" stricter guidelines.

What Countrywide and Landsafe consider Standard Operating Procedure is their personal preference, which is OK, but to be technically honest here, the Landsafe review appraiser should have performed a "Field Review" and measured it himself, since his criteria are different than the Fannie Mae Scope Of Work guidelines that we all work under."


I dare any of you persnickety posters to blow a hole in that statement.

The only thing I'd say is not sound is the part that says he should have preformed a field review and measured it himself. We don't measure during a field review and they simply would have declined the appraisal and either had a new one completed by someone else (not the reviewer) or the broker would have gone to another lender. But all in all a dead on reply.

 

[AJL118]

To Jim Klos

Quote: I know the mortgage brokers I have worked with in the past care about and value the relationship I have with them and them with me.

Boy, do we live in different neighborhoods!!!!

 

[The Bob]

Qualifications: I have been in the real estate business for about 40 years - virtually every facet of it including brokering financing for 150 +- apartment project loans, private mortgage insurance, mortgage brokerage, real estate sales, investment, running an appraisal firm administratively. Had money, went broke, had money, went broke, went broke, went broke. I think I know my sh$t, although some may disagree.

Scenario: Office receives an appraiser order for a condo in "Whispering Glen". Initial research says 1,150 SF in public records. Condo docs say it is a 2/2 and a "Baywood" model. Checked sales. Sales say 5 Baywood models re-sold within last 90 days (all say 1,150 SF). Anal appraiser measures the Subject and come up with 980 SF. Ooops! Off by 70 SF. What to do? Don't tell me you are going to make adjustments......... What are you going to do on the 1073? You are short by 70 SF compared to your comps, but they are the same thing! Are you going to say by addendum that although public records say 1,150 SF, you are right with your 980 SF and public records are wrong including the comps?
How do you know if you are right and public records are wrong? Did you read the condo docs? What is "owned" by the condo owner? Paint to paint? Stud to stud? Beyond stud to stud? See where I am going?

IMO, this whole argument is without merit. Landsafe is FOS. When I was in the business (until there were no paychecks 3 months ago), we did thousands of condo appraisals and never once got dinged for not measuring a condo. Caveat: If no public records were available, we measured. I guess if it is a "feel good" exercise, do it, but it doesn't mean squat and only creates questions - not answers them. That is, if you don't have any public records to go with. If not, you have my sympathy.

I've run into this exact scenario a number of times with GLA on condos. More often than not, I find the GLA is off from what public records show.

Now Tony brings up a good point. You can't ding the comps (assuming same model, same GLA as subject in public records). To do so would be misleading imo. I will either expand my criteria for making an adjustment (in Tonys example, I would NOT adjust the comps for differences in GLA of 70' or less) and if this non adjustment looks out of the ordinary, I would make a comment as to why I am not adjusting the comps for apparent differences in GLA.

To the whole scenario that lead to this thread, I think 9 of 10 appraisers would agree that you should measure the condo if your SOW calls for an interior inspection.

 

[Mztk1]

Quote: I know the mortgage brokers I have worked with in the past care about and value the relationship I have with them and them with me.

Boy, do we live in different neighborhoods!!!!

There are some honest ones out there that want only honest appraisers. Because there are so few on either side it is hard to hook up, but once you do you tend to stay together. I've got no fewer than 7 that I have worked with for 5+ years.

 

[Kevin A. Spellman]

Lee the Landsafe reviewer could easily waive the measuring requirements and they do every day. If someone question factual data, I have always stated, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”. The GLA in the report is fact and it is not an opinion. An after-service requirement for an investor should not be imposed to a service provider without adequate compensation.

 

[robert higgins]

This whole reviewer comments blows my mind. If the reviewer is not measuring the condo themselves, then how do they know if the appraiser’s measurements (stated or pulled from town record) are correct in the first place?

XI, 204.01, states how the appraiser can arrive at the estimated for GLA.
SR-3, states how a review is suppose to be performed.

Where does it say a reviewer can set guidelines for the original appraiser, or how the original appraiser is suppose write the report? Even if the original report is done right or wrong.

What would happen if the appraiser measured the condo at 1,000 sqft or 1,050 sqft or 2,000 sqft? Can the reviewer dictate what measurement to be used in the report? No, so how could the reviewer dictate to his client how an original appraiser should do their job in the first place. Same goes if I stated I measured the condo to be 1,050 sqft, but stated I used 1,073 sqft for my report to be consistent with town records, and the reviewer measures 1,065 sqft, who is right?

I would tell the MB to tell the reviewer to fly out from Dallas (because you all know that the reviewer is from there) and measure it themselves and prove my stated GLA was wrong first before they can dictate what I must do.

 

[Bama Bayou]

My answer to the mortgage broker today

"I measured the condo and will send updated report soon. I just want you to understand that my report was "acceptable", it just doesn't adhere to Countrywide's personal criteria. The Landsafe reviewer should have told you that Landsafe and Countrywide have "extra" requirements and the appraisal under review, although complete and accurate, is not acceptable because it does not meet "their" stricter guidelines.

What Countrywide and Landsafe consider Standard Operating Procedure is their personal preference, which is OK, but to be technically honest here, the Landsafe review appraiser should have performed a "Field Review" and measured it himself, since his criteria are different than the Fannie Mae Scope Of Work guidelines that we all work under."


I dare any of you persnickety posters to blow a hole in that statement.

Sure, I'll take a shot at it.

Page four of the 1073 has the following certification that you signed:

2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements. The sketch is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraisers's determination of its size.

You did not provide a sketch. You provided a "plat" from the condo docs. You did not determine the size of the improvements, you got it from the condo docs.

That would not be acceptable to me if I were the reviewer.

Telling the MB that the reviewer should measure the property is not very smart. It is not your business to tell them how to do their job. It is their job to determine if you have done yours.

I bet the next time the MB needs a condo appraisal you will be the last appraiser they call.

Bang! Hole blown.

The SOW on page four has the following item:

(5) research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or private sources.

How did you verify the dimensions and GLA from the plat unless you measured the condo? Apparently you didn't until they demanded that you measure it.

Bang!. Another hole blown.

Call me "persnickety" if you want. I am picky about measuring though.

 

[CANative]

You did not provide a sketch. You provided a "plat" from the condo docs.

Appraisers sketch / assessors sketch.... big deal. The stated reason for providing the drawing was to show the approximate dimensions. The plat served that purpose.

You did not determine the size of the improvements, you got it from the condo docs.

That wasn't why the sketch was included. The reason was to assist the client in visualizing the property and for the client to understand the appraiser's determination of size. The OP stated that he determined the size to be what the assessor's records indicated and the sketch (plat) was included to help the client understand.

(5) research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or private sources.

Verify? The pre-printed standard you cited states:

The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements.