My first 2000 One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report. Well, unless I decline it.

[J Grant]

J Grant is a reliable source here and he stated a differing opinion. But no....for my reviews in such a case I would check the "no" box and say "zzz Assessor reports the Subject site dimensions are ZZ x UU". By doing so you are not being 'overly critical' of the original report....but you are 'doing the job' by accurately reporting a potential discrepancy. Back in the post 2008 days it was not uncommon that my review would have "no" checked all the way down the entire page.....and I would have an addendum for the continuation of my comments because there wasn't enough room to fit all of the discrepancies on that page or section.

Most of those "no's" (aside from the last one) does not indicate that you necessarily disagree with the Original Appraiser's overall opinion or techniques....it merely means that your data indicates that he/she had not utilized data which corresponds with your credible source(s). In some cases....the Appraiser hired a 'data-puller' to fill-out pg. 1....or they just lazily fill out pg. 1.....who knows?...and who cares? The point is....correct is yes....incorrect is no.

Back up your no's with credible supportive data in a clear/concise fashion. You are reviewing the Report. You are not reviewing the Appraiser.

agree (I am female but my screen name is confusing, I wish I could change it but they don't let us,, anyway Grant is a former married name and J stands for JoAnne)

But I do the same - I mark yes, the information is not accurate but the discrepancy is minor and does not materially affect the value opinion ( assuming that is true ). Reporting a lot is 8150 sf when it turns out it is 8470 sf is not going to affect the value ....the review is done so the client can gauge the reliability of the appraisal we are reviewing.

 

[Tom D]

big city. i've seen our public records site sf not match the lot dimensions on a rectangular lot. apparently with so many homes, they rounded off the lot dimensions. not a big deal on little row home lots, but using their dimensions i am not anal correct as some of you might want. the only true verification is the legal description, mostly. i try not to get too excited about the minutia on reviews. but then again i stopped doing them, was a lender reviewer, cause i had to be anal when they were really bad.

 

[Kitarkus]

agree (I am female but my screen name is confusing, I wish I could change it but they don't let us,, anyway Grant is a former married name and J stands for JoAnne)

But I do the same - I mark yes, the information is not accurate but the discrepancy is minor and does not materially affect the value opinion ( assuming that is true ). Reporting a lot is 8150 sf when it turns out it is 8470 sf is not going to affect the value ....the review is done so the client can gauge the reliability of the appraisal we are reviewing.

Sorry for my misuse of pronoun!!!!!

 

[alebrewer]

Correct, Grant is a former married last name in my case and /J stands for JoAnne but how would anyone know that so sometimes people assume "he"...

Of course - it's an anonymous forum. Isn't it interesting, though, that folks almost always assume an appraiser is male. Maybe there's something to the diversity drive after all...

 

[sputnam]

Of course - it's an anonymous forum. Isn't it interesting, though, that folks almost always assume an appraiser is male. Maybe there's something to the diversity drive after all...

It's a bias of sorts. One that is probably based on the fiact that the majority of appraisers are male.

 

[J Grant]

Come on guys!
Look at my avatar!! My cute little cat on my keyboard!! ( I no longer have him , passed on age 12 his name was Roo)

Would a male have an adorable cat for an avatar? -lol (see we women can stereotype too !

No problem we all make assumptions....carry on