Lender Name Change

[kaepps]

AMC is requesting I change the name of the Primary lender to the secondary lender that is named in the appraisal request. I know we are not suppose to change lender names but the request specifically has a Primary lender named and a Secondary lender named. This was prepared as an FHA and has the case number on the report. Under USPAP can I make this change on the front page of the report??

 

[hastalavista]

Are they both clients for the same assignment? Why not identify them both if that is the case.

 

[kaepps]

Are they both clients for the same assignment? Why not identify them both if that is the case.

Yes both are for the same assignment. The secondary lender is the local Bank

 

[kaepps]

They have asked me to change the lender name from the primary to the secondary. I can add the secondary lender on the addendum page of the report but I don't think this will satisfy them.

 

[hastalavista]

An appraisal report is supposed to identify the client.
"Client" can be more than one individual or entity. It sounds like you have two entities which are the clients for this assignment.

I'm not sure what the UAD restrictions are for naming multiple entities as clients, but it seems to me that for USPAP compliance, as long as the clients (all of them) are identified in the report, you are fine.

IMO, someone asking you to identify one of the clients and not the other would cause you to violate USPAP.
However, I doubt if there is something nefarious going on; the issue is the format-requirements for UAD upload. Despite the motivations or intent of the request (good, ill, or neutral), if it were me and I had multiple clients for an assignment, each one of them would be named in the report as such. I don't think it is a big deal that only one name fits in the UAD space. I'd comment that due to the UAD formating limitations, one client only can be named in the pre-printed form, but that all clients are identified clearly in the narrative for USPAP compliance.

That's my take; someone else might see it differently.

Good luck!

 

[kaepps]

An appraisal report is supposed to identify the client.
"Client" can be more than one individual or entity. It sounds like you have two entities which are the clients for this assignment.

I'm not sure what the UAD restrictions are for naming multiple entities as clients, but it seems to me that for USPAP compliance, as long as the clients (all of them) are identified in the report, you are fine.

IMO, someone asking you to identify one of the clients and not the other would cause you to violate USPAP.
However, I doubt if there is something nefarious going on; the issue is the format-requirements for UAD upload. Despite the motivations or intent (good, ill, or neutral), if it were me and I had multiple clients for an assignment, each one of them would be named in the report as such. I don't think it is a big deal that only one name fits in the UAD space. I'd comment that due to the UAD formating limitations, one client only can be named in the pre-printed form, but that all clients are identified clearly in the narrative for USPAP compliance.

That's my take; someone else might see it differently.

Good luck!

Thanks - good advice.

 

[CANative]

It's irrelevant to HUD/FHA what name is on the report. I would not do this as there is no reason.

 

[hastalavista]

It's irrelevant to HUD/FHA what name is on the report.

If it is irrelevant, then they don't care and it doesn't matter to them; they are an intended user and they still have it the way that is acceptable to them.

I would not do this as there is no reason.

Sounds to me like one of the clients has a reason, no?

I forgot to add that if you do (kaepps) make the change, be sure to:
A. Keep a copy of the original report you sent with the other client named in the form-section; and
B. Re-sign the new report with a new report/signature date.

 

[chad hampton]

If the client is asking for it, then there must be a reason. I would do it. Life is hard enough without losing your business due over something like adding another lender to the report. Revise the report, send it in, and move on to the next paying assignment. That's my advice.

One of the serious downsides to this nationwide AMC model that 'they' decided to cram down our throats is that you can't afford to really lose one as a client. I wasn't worried about losing a mtg broker as a client, I'd walk down the street and find 2 more to take their place. As I ride down the streets these days, I don't see offices with the letters "AMC" on them.

 

[hastalavista]

I think you make a good point, Chad (although you might get pilloried for it).

First, for all we know, this particular AMC might be an outstanding one to work with.
But, to your point, this is a simple customer service request (IMO) that can be addressed with little fuss and in a USPAP compliant manner. So, why throw up an unnecessary barrier to obstruct it?

Unless the uploading process is more tortuous than the path of a pachinko ball, this seems like a no-brainer to me.