MB's funder wants their name added as intended user

[RSW]

What happens when the loan doesn't close with this lender and the MB asks you to add another lender as the intended user in order to close it?

 

[CANative]

The broker has been a good client. He was patient with me even though I took a long time to complete the report. Never any pressure for value, conditions, etc, etc. His attitude was that I was the appraiser and whatever I said goes. He gave his borrower a ration for not sending me a check fast enough.

I feel for the guy. He's been working on this one for months.

 

[robert higgins]

If the bank is a federally regulated institution, then why do they need their name on it, they can use it without it?

 

[Couch Potato]

If the bank is a federally regulated institution, then why do they need their name on it, they can use it without it?

Internal guidelines no doubt.

 

[CANative]

According to the UW it's not even the banks requirement. It the banks investors requirement. So I guess I'm expected to specifically identify the bank as the intended user, no wait, the end user so that some unknown investor can use it even though the intended user, I mean end user, was not the investor.

:Eyecrazy:

 

[Caterina Platt]

Dear Mr. Underwriter,


Thank you for your time on the phone today. I'm sorry we couldn't see eye to eye on your situation at this point, so I thought I'd try to send you a quick note to define an appraiser's position. It may seem at this point that some appraisers are the most difficult people to work with, however that is not my intention.

Considering we both work in an environment governed by regulatory agencies, I'm hoping that we can come to an understanding on each other's concerns and requirements. I am specifically bound to competence rules, and for creating a report that complies with the intended user's needs. These requirements are part of an appraisers professional standards.

When I accept an assignment, from the beginning I must identify the intended users and intended use and understand the scope of the assignment. My original client was ABC Mortgage Broker and the scope of work was to write a report to comply with GSE guidelines. Several weeks later, I am requested to 'simply add an intended user'. I am also told that this is a type of agricultural program and this specific investor requires this.

If I simply add the new intended user's name to the report, it appears that I understood they were the client in the first place. It also implies I know what standards and guidelines this particular investor requires, and what is the scope of work required. This is simply not true at this point. I have received none of this information, and forgive me, but I'm not about to 'place a label' on my product when I don't know if the ingredients match the description.

I hope that you can understand my postion, and that I'm not simply trying to be difficult. If you could please supply me with the appraisal and property specifics involved in this program, I would be happy to evaluate if 1) our original inspection was adequate or if there are additional observations that must be made on site, and 2) the reporting, comparables, and market considerations were all performed in compliance with your investor's requirements.

Sincerely,

Crabass Appraisal Services

(Written my a fellow Crab)

 

[Webbed Feet]

Ms. Platt,

You left out telling the dimwit that altering the buzz words from "Intended User" to "End User" was a nice try, but just entirely too obvious for anyone over the age of twelve.

Webbed.

P.S. Altering the buzz words does not affect Fannie's prohibition against modification to the intended user statement. An "end user" is an intended user no matter how they try to spin it. This is a blatent demand for modification of the intended user statement.

 

[Marcia Langley]

In the event that this had been included in the original order, what would be the ramifications?

In my mind the lender/client remains the MB because he was the one who closed the loan. It seems to me that the funding lender is an "investor", not a part of the lender/client entity. the most the investor could ever be is an additional user, not a client-user. And that would be contrary to GSE guidelines.

I'm trying to compare this to lenders' agents who can be identified as lender/client = Lender/AMC and it does not seem to compare. It seems like it would be Lender/Lender.

If an MB lender were acting as an agent for a bank lender the loan would be closed at the bank, not at the MB. Then the lender/client might actually be the Lender/Lender in name, if not in function.

But like you said, Greg, you'd have to get all of this straight up front.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Ms. Langley,

Normally love your posts, and like this one. But It really highlights something.

Lender / Client
Client / Lender
Intended User
Additional User
End User
Client User
Final User
Intermediary User
Expert User
Novice User
User User
Lender / AMC
Lender / Lender
Agent User
Agent / Client
AMC / Agent
"Not a Client User" (So now we need to add what everyone is not!)
the beat goes on into fifty ways to leave your lover.

This is fast becoming like what do you get when you cross a Poodle with a Mortgage Broker?

Answer: You get a PoopaBroker! Or wait, would that be a Mortgagedoodle?

Sorta like when you cross a piece of s.h.i.t. with a Poodle you get a PoopaDoodle! That's a Webbed original by the way.

My point is that Fannie has made a horrible mess out of things by entitling a form row identification to be "Lender/Client" for starters and then making that even worse by using that in an Intended User definition statement with Fannies typical utter lack of clarity. So now we have an entire country full of folks confused from one end of it to the other over this. Does that line, or row, on the forms represent one entity, or two entities? Or is it one entity when the one entity happens to be both, then two entities when one of them is not both? Should an appraiser use the line to say something like "BofA / Home Focus Valuations" in order to show BofA is the "Lender" and Home Focus Valuations is the "Client?" Or is that some sort of violation of something because that data field can only be ONE entity and not shown as two like that because it was supposed to be "The Lender / Client?"

Ok, now comes the Intended User statement that just casually tosses at us that that the intended user is the "lender/client." Ok, sorta makes sense, kinda sorta...... I guess the client must be an intended user... I guess any lender the client uses can be one. But does this make any lender the following lender uses also an intended user? What about when the loan gets sold twenty times? Twenty intended users? But does this make any lender used the appraiser's client? Twenty clients? Ooops! Make that twenty-one, forgot that original client don't you know? .. You and I know the answer to this last one is an absolute negative. But so many folks don't understand this that it is turning into a problem for all the appraisers.

The bottom line is Fannie should have never placed "Lender" and "Client" as a data field header called "Lender/Client" on a form like that and then proceeded to spread such a header title into everything else while utterly failing to define the meaning of the title being used. It's a stupid hold over from when very few mortgage brokers existed, no AMC's existed at all , and most all appraisers worked directly with an originating bank as their client.

All along, and for many years now going WAY back, Fannie should have given "Lender" and "Client" their own individual places on the forms that were separate. Today, it would be a damn good idea if Fannie would create a new form data entry field called "Agent for Client" so it can be clearly labeled who placed the damn order with the appraiser and claims to be legally an agent representing a third party to be named the appraiser's client.

It is obvious that all lenders cannot be the appraiser's clients because the majority are always unidentified to the appraiser at the time of the assignment. .. Oh my! USPAP words! ... That doesn't work. For a long time now not all clients are "lenders" as many mortgage brokers only originate loans via the origination paperwork. Yet these MBers are in fact the ONLY client the appraiser has. These MBers go shop the loan. All the unknown lenders getting shopped cannot be an appraisers client, nor even be called intended users as many of them have different requirements and the fricking MBer can't tell the appraisers what those requirements are because the broker hasn't settled on a lender yet! In spite of these facts, we have appraisers on the forum posting with verbiage that means they believe that any lender that gets used is somehow their client because the forms say "Lender/Client."

It's all a big mess if I were asked about it! And it's not getting better when hardly anyone understands the buzz words at this point. It is right up there with drumming away that an "Update" is not a ROV and an update is a new assignment. We now have entities attempting to alter the nomenclature and claim they have sidestepped who the intended user(s) are by calling themselves "End User."

Webbed.

 

[Bearslide]

As always, Mr Webbed, you are point on. Great reading first thing in the AM.

Mortgagedoodle??????I am having trouble picturing that...............white and curly but driving a Mercedes? This makes a good case for neutering mortgage brokers.............