Manufactured Or Stick Built

[CANative]

It's not logical and I suspect it's more a matter of how the appraiser described the improvements that would cause the rejection.

Although I can't argue if it was you personally that was making the decision since it was your decision to make.

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

The problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's guidelines is that in one section they state anything with a steel undercarriage is a manufactured home. Which describes manufacture homes, mobile homes, on frame modular homes. Then in the eligibility section the guidelines says that all manufactured homes have to be built to the HUD building code. That paragraph eliminates mobile homes and on frame modular homes. And creates a problem for manufactured homes constructed to the HUD building code but never have had a steel undercarriage. Because putting the two guidelines together; they don't accept the ones without the steel undercarriage because they don't have one.

So a reviewer might reject a home that has been 99.9999% constructed on the site to the local building code except for the .0001 part of the supporting structure being a steel undercarriage. Each reviewer has their own understanding of the guidelines.

 

[jtinmichigan]

Disclose. I call them more-ons. Take a trailer and add moron. Its still manufactured.

 

[Fargo1]

Very interesting discussion here. My experience with mfg homes is limited. So take my opinion as such. I've seen several mfg homes with stick built additions. Fortunately they still had tags so there was no issue. But regardless, I still considered them mfg despite considerable additions.

So it seems the debate here is centered around "at what point does a mfg house cease to be mfg and become stick built house". My initial reaction is that once mfg always mfg. However, I think CANative makes an interesting point, that at some point the metal frame could simply be considered building material. So lets run with that.

Using steel as building material is different than using wood. In the case of high heat, as in a house fire, steel looses structural integrity from the heat alone. Wood can be blackened and charred by fire and still maintain its integrity. I suspect a great deal of the concern about loaning on mfg homes come from this issue.

So is the house a stick built with metal building materials or is it a manufactured house? I don't know, but if I called it a stick built house I would want to disclose everything very carefully. I would even advise a structural engineer look at the property to see if the frame meets structural requirements. Due to the effects of heat on metal, framing with metal materials is a lot different than framing with wood materials. So it would take different building methods to be done properly. The original manufacturer likely had the structure engineered properly to withstand the heat of a house fire. But did the DIY home owner that did the remodeling?

I suspect something like this very likely would not comply with building codes and/or underwriting criteria whether you consider the frame as metal building materials or whether you consider it mfg without proper ID. In short, this property is now a cash only deal. Proceed with caution and disclose everything.

 

[CANative]

So you're thinking that a fire hot enough and intense enough to destroy the steel I-beam chassis of a manufactured home will only blacken the wood of a conventionally built structure?

I don't know about that. I work Lake County CA which has had four major wild fires in the last 11 months that destroyed about 1,600 homes. I see lots of MH chassis's but for the rest of the properties just piles of ashes and melted appliances and rubble.

 

[CANative]

In a really intense fire that destroys everything the steel chassis will twist and bend but it's still the last thing remaining.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It's not logical

What does logic have to do with underwriting?

at some point the metal frame could simply be considered building material.

So could used tires, beer bottles and aluminum cans...but does anyone want to lend on them?

 

[Fargo1]

So you're thinking that a fire hot enough and intense enough to destroy the steel I-beam chassis of a manufactured home will only blacken the wood of a conventionally built structure?

I'm not saying this, a structural engineer informed me of this. Heat alone will damage steel, but not wood. I don't know at what temp the steel will be damaged and at what temp the wood will burst into flames. There will likely be different degrees of heat involved with each material. I'm just trying to say that steel structures can be damaged from heat and you will never see the damage. The heat changes the strength of the steel. Just as using heat to forge steel can make it stronger, heat can also make it weaker. But the damage will never be visible. However, with wood you can have visible damage, but the remaining wood will still have its integrity intact. Don't think that steel has to be melted or visibly damaged to be 'destroyed'. It only has to be highly heated to have its integrity compromised.

The structural integrity of materials is really an engineering issue. That is why I say to disclose and recommend an engineer to look at it. I'm not an engineer. I just know that heat will change the structural integrity of metal. So we need to disclose this information so the lender will know what they are getting. I would personally call it a manufactured home, but no matter what you call it, you are going to have issues to deal with. Disclose disclose disclose.

 

[CANative]

I probably describe improvements in an appraisal report to a degree that exceeds the norm. And this would be no different. I doubt if I would call it a manufactured home based on the old saw "once a manufactured always a manufactured."

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It only has to be highly heated to have its integrity compromised.

Steel can lose it's temper hence strength. By 400 degrees you begin to lose strength. The minimum temperature to ignite wood is less, about 350 degrees unless starved of oxygen.