paint chipping

[ZZGAMAZZ]

RSW: I don't understand the rationale for CB4 rather than CB3. Although I'm not a paint expert, I had presumed that the follow-up inspection should be in the purview of the appraiser rather than a different type of expert. I'd appreciate your insight. (I really don't want to be responsible but am aware of HUD guidelines indicating that an appraiser can't slough the responsibility merely to avoid exposure to liability.) Thanks.

 

[Brad Pack]

The underwriter forwarded me a paper from HUD today that waves the chipped paint inspection on a reverse mortgage if no children under 7 live in the house.

NO! NO! NO! That is an underwriting decision. The appraiser MUST report what he/she observes and condition the report accordingly.

 

[Brad Pack]

The owner fills out the form from the lender then the lender sends it to you. I have never seen this before. I kept the note about the chipped paint and added the paper to the report before I sent it back.

Including that form in the report in no way excuses an appraiser's failure to require LBP abatement. If reviewed by HUD it could (and should) warrant a sanction against the appraiser.

 

[Michael Tipton]

Brad,

Thanks for "shining the light" on various FHA questions. Only wish others would do the same. Hope you didn't object to the forwarded pm I sent earlier this week.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

NO! NO! NO! That is an underwriting decision. The appraiser MUST report what he/she observes and condition the report accordingly.

Now, isn't that what I said?

 

[Brad Pack]

Now, isn't that what I said?

Yes it was. But, with all due respect, the answer might be taken more seriously from a HUD Chief versus a fee appraiser. No?

 

[Brad Pack]

Brad,

Thanks for "shining the light" on various FHA questions. Only wish others would do the same. Hope you didn't object to the forwarded pm I sent earlier this week.

Not a problem, Michael.

 

[JSmith43]

Now, isn't that what I said?

You deserve partial credit for weighing in on the matter, Tim. 50/50 most people would get it right though

Brad, if you are still following this, I believe the initial poster was fishing for some sort of reasonableness standard. For example, there are probably always cracks visible under a microscope on cured paint.

I suppose, if I were asked to help create a standard, I would want to address whether the cracks break through to the surface to be protected, yet still address imminent adhesion failure as evidenced by bubbles, underlying paint that is 100 years old and 1/8" thick. Stuff like that.

Is sufficient cracking/peeling evidence like ****ography? Do we only know it when we see it? I'm sensing an implied zero tolerance standard is the official policy and a reasonableness test is what others want to think actually is the standard for a review. Beats me, but I'd take & share lots of pictures.

 

[RSW]

RSW: I don't understand the rationale for CB4 rather than CB3. Although I'm not a paint expert, I had presumed that the follow-up inspection should be in the purview of the appraiser rather than a different type of expert. I'd appreciate your insight. (I really don't want to be responsible but am aware of HUD guidelines indicating that an appraiser can't slough the responsibility merely to avoid exposure to liability.) Thanks.

My Bad! CB3. Typo.

 

[Mike Boyd]

thats what I thought.

I conditioned the appraisal. It had more than a few chips but not pealing or anything really bad.

You done right!