MB's funder wants their name added as intended user

[CANative]

Greg - Fxxxxx Nxxxxx Bank is asking me to ask you to make a very minor comment to this file, adding Fxxxx Nxxxxx Bank as the intended user...could be done in the comments section or on the invoice page

sorry to keep pestering you with this file. We've never had a bank make this request before.

Let me know if you have any questions about this, of course we need this yesterday!

thanks,

Jeff xxxxx

Pros and cons?

My thoughts: intended users are identified at the beginning of an assignment. Adding a specific intended user might contradict Fannie Mae booja booja.

 

[Lost Cause]

Unnecessary Request

I would tell the MB that it could be done, but there will be a fee. If they complain and ask why, tell them it is to cover added liabilities resulting from added intended users. If they say no, tell them it's ok as it was never necessary in the first place.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Pros and cons?

My thoughts: intended users are identified at the beginning of an assignment. Adding a specific intended user might contradict Fannie Mae booja booja.

Assuming you enquired of your client at the time you were engaged and the client did not identify this other "other intended user", you can not add this entity now. This is a USPAP "booja booja" and not a Fannie Mae "booja booja".

You can, however, accept a new assignment (fee as you and your client agree) and in this new assignment identify this other Intended User.

 

[CANative]

Can a specifically named intended user be entered on a Fannie Mae form and still be in compliance with the pre-printed certs?

I'm thinking it's not a simple matter of just being a new assignment. If they want to be named as the intended user they would have to forward me their unique appraisal requirements for my review to ensure that the scope of work matches. As it stands now, there are no specific scope of work requirements other than Fannie/Freddie/GSE requirements because no other intended users were identified.

 

[Charles Knutson]

Historically, the name of the company that is on the closing docs is the intended user (client) on the appraisal report. This kind of stuff was more prevalent when everybody and the brother was a mortgage broker; now, nearly all of my clients have the wherewithal to close loans in their own names.

The scope of work issues and added fee for generating a new file number and new report are your call.

 

[Couch Potato]

Can a specifically named intended user be entered on a Fannie Mae form and still be in compliance with the pre-printed certs?

I'm thinking it's not a simple matter of just being a new assignment. If they want to be named as the intended user they would have to forward me their unique appraisal requirements for my review to ensure that the scope of work matches. As it stands now, there are no specific scope of work requirements other than Fannie/Freddie/GSE requirements because no other intended users were identified.

If the MB can make a reasonable claim that the bank's name was inadvertently left off the order form, in other words the space for it was there on the form and was blank, a case for just adding the name can be made (Obviously if that lender was listed on the order form there is not a problem putting them in the report.) It would mean the MB had them in mind when ordering and the scope of work and lender conditions would have already been factored into the job by the MB when discussing the assignment with you. I do not care for the idea, but a reasonable person could make such a case for the action; it is just correcting an inadvertent error.

If too much time has passed (more than a couple days) such a claim could not hold water. Likewise if some other lender was listed. I would not be inclined to meet the request as a general rule, but I did have at least one such situation where the MB was able to convince me it was an honest mistake on his part; he claimed it was the first appraisal he had ever ordered and he had the behavior to back up his claim.

 

[CANative]

It's a very odd property even for one with a 1,000 square foot kit house on 165 acres. He's been shopping this one around for a couple of months.

I fired this off to him. Let's see what happens..

Jeff,

This is not a “very minor comment” to a file. The first requirement of the appraisal process is indentifying intended users and intended uses. This is necessary in order to determine the scope of work necessary in developing and reporting the appraisal. Since no other intended users were identified at the start of this assignment, the intended user was identified by type (client/lender) and the intended use was mortgage underwriting to GSE appraisal requirements.

If FNB desires to be named as the intended user then we need to consider this a new assignment. I will need an engagement letter from the bank along with their specific appraisal and underwriting guidelines. Additionally if the bank is a federally regulated institution I will have to include compliance with Statement 10 in USPAP as part of the scope of work. FNB will also have to understand that the appraisal cannot be reported on the Fannie Mae Nov. 2005 1004 reporting form because the pre-printed statements prohibit any modifications to the intended user, among other requirements.

Personally, I think the banks underwriting or loan staff is in error with this request. Do you have something in writing?

 

[Couch Potato]

Looks good except for the fact that Statement 10 was retired at the first of the year.

 

[CANative]

Sigh...

Now what?

Greg - I used wrong term, should have said 'end user', not intended user....please confirm if this makes a difference...

if not, could I trouble you to contact the underwriter making this request, xxxx xxxx - zzz-zzz-xxxx

also, the bank will accept comment on letter head, doesn't need to be put back into the report itself...

 

[CANative]

Couch... I was trying to intimidate them. LOL