Not sure about a revision request

[JLR]

UWM? Underwriters there are extremely stubborn and will call you wrong all the way to the end until they are proven wrong.

If the assignment was for just the house and one acre and that tract is only one acre. You have done your job.

Yes, I had to prove I was right. Thank you for all of your help.

 

[Sadie]

I completed an appraisal for a refinance for Newrez in October. There are 2 parcels that are contiguous that make up the total property. One parcel is the house and one acre and the second parcel is 13.279 acres with a barn and is considered excess land. It is buildable and has road frontage and it is not part of the appraisal. Only the parcel with the house and one acre was appraised. The lender has made a revision request that the appraisal be made subject to each parcel being on its own deed. I asked why and the CRT Risk Manager, who is an appraiser, said they can't sell it to the GSE's "because they don’t buy property with multiple parcels where the highest and best use is no." I called Fannie Mae and was told to submit a question form, which I did today. I've asked 3 experienced appraisers in my area as well as a loan officer at the local bank. All four said they have not heard of this stipulation. The loan officer stated that he has made loans like this without the parcels being deeded separately. Has anyone run into this? Is she correct? Do they have to be deeded separately? I'm not trying to be difficult but I want the appraisal to be accurate. If I should revise it, based on Fannie Mae guidelines, I will. If I shouldn't, I would like to be able to tell the lender why. I'm sorry to ramble. Thank you all for your time.

I'm with JGrant here. If you are only appraising the one parcel, it makes it cleaner for you.

 

[JLR]

I'm with JGrant here. If you are only appraising the one parcel, it makes it cleaner for you.

Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your time.

 

[sputnam]

I completed an appraisal for a refinance for Newrez in October. There are 2 parcels that are contiguous that make up the total property. One parcel is the house and one acre and the second parcel is 13.279 acres with a barn and is considered excess land. It is buildable and has road frontage and it is not part of the appraisal. Only the parcel with the house and one acre was appraised. The lender has made a revision request that the appraisal be made subject to each parcel being on its own deed. I asked why and the CRT Risk Manager, who is an appraiser, said they can't sell it to the GSE's "because they don’t buy property with multiple parcels where the highest and best use is no." I called Fannie Mae and was told to submit a question form, which I did today. I've asked 3 experienced appraisers in my area as well as a loan officer at the local bank. All four said they have not heard of this stipulation. The loan officer stated that he has made loans like this without the parcels being deeded separately. Has anyone run into this? Is she correct? Do they have to be deeded separately? I'm not trying to be difficult but I want the appraisal to be accurate. If I should revise it, based on Fannie Mae guidelines, I will. If I shouldn't, I would like to be able to tell the lender why. I'm sorry to ramble. Thank you all for your time.

I would decline. The number of deeds that the properties are on is not an appraisal issue. I can't speak to the rules governing what loans the GSEs will or won't buy. That's not the appraiser's problem. It's firmly in the responsibilities of the Lender/Client. The appraiser's responsibility is to correctly and adequately identify the property being appraised.

 

[J Grant]

I would decline. The number of deeds that the properties are on is not an appraisal issue. I can't speak to the rules governing what loans the GSEs will or won't buy. That's not the appraiser's problem. It's firmly in the responsibilities of the Lender/Client. The appraiser's responsibility is to correctly and adequately identify the property being appraised.

We don't know if the OP correctly identified the property being appraised, if they made an additional HC ( additional HC is not allowed anyway on 1004 ) or if they made an HC to exclude the 13-acre parcel on the legal description. Either way, the OP can be in trouble on this, what the client wants will actually save them from that.

While technically, what parcels are on a deed may not be an appraisal issue, an appraiser can add additional work to the SOW that is relevant to the assignment.

True story - early in my career, I listened to a CG give poor advice on this board and lost a great client over it, a loss that probably amounted to over 100k or more in business. I stil see, to this day, see CG appriasers jumping in on GSE work saying inane things like use a narrative report ( they'll kick it back) use a GP form ( they'll kick it back ) etc.

If the client was asking for something fraudulent or that would change the value or anything like that, of course, the advice is to refuse. But in this case, all the client is asking for is a simple make-it subject to putting each piece on its own deed. What, exactly, is the adverse appraisal issue with doing that?

 

[TerryRohrer]

We don't know if the OP correctly identified the property being appraised, if they made an additional HC ( additional HC is not allowed anyway on 1004 ) or if they made an HC to exclude the 13-acre parcel on the legal description. Either way, the OP can be in trouble on this, what the client wants will actually save them from that.

While technically, what parcels are on a deed may not be an appraisal issue, an appraiser can add additional work to the SOW that is relevant to the assignment.

True story - early in my career, I listened to a CG give poor advice on this board and lost a great client over it, a loss that probably amounted to over 100k or more in business. I stil see, to this day, see CG appriasers jumping in on GSE work saying inane things like use a narrative report ( they'll kick it back) use a GP form ( they'll kick it back ) etc.

If the client was asking for something fraudulent or that would change the value or anything like that, of course, the advice is to refuse. But in this case, all the client is asking for is a simple make-it subject to putting each piece on its own deed. What, exactly, is the adverse appraisal issue with doing that?

So your revenge is to give bad advice, in turn, because you won't read what has been posted? All the things you don't know about have been classified by the OP for some time.

 

[Tom D]

While technically, what parcels are on a deed may not be an appraisal issue, an appraiser can add additional work to the SOW that is relevant to the assignment.

True story - early in my career, I listened to a CG give poor advice on this board and lost a great client over it, a loss that probably amounted to over 100k or more in business. I stil see, to this day, see CG appriasers jumping in on GSE work saying inane things like use a narrative report ( they'll kick it back) use a GP form ( they'll kick it back ) etc.

J Grant, it is never happy time to lose any good client. On this blog we may disagree on minor stuff and nutty political stuff, but you are on my bff appraiser list knowledge wise. This blog is like a continuing ed course.

I always think weird lender stips come from a newer underwriter, or one that got burned on something. If you can do a work around on some non understandable request. Just do it and keep the request in your work file. Likely, they are going to separate the 2 lots with 2 deeds at settlement, only lending on the house lot deed. Some lenders are anal about everything matching.

Whenever you get a non typical assignment you should talk to someone, for them to get it right before you have to re do things.

 

[sputnam]

It's not (probably) a valuation issue. Adding a subject to condition that has nothing to do with the valuation is lunacy. 'Probably' because it is possible that selling the properties as one economic unit would command a different price than selling them individually... but, that's not the same thing, I can't see that there would be any harm in including an Hypothetical Condition to cover the Client's concern. I would explain to the Client why it's BS.

BTW... Tom... you should really make sure you know who it is, what they do, and what they know before you reject any advice that is posted here. Many CGs mostly or only do residential work and are quite familiar with GSE requirements. Yes, some CGs get it wrong sometimes. At the end of the day, what you do in your appraisal practice is no one elses responsibility.

I oppose bowing to the Client because that is part of how we got into this mess. Beginning before most of us were appraisers. For example, and I'm sure forumites can think of many others, flood plain determination should never have been added to the appraiser's work. It's surveyor work.