VolcanoLvr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Washington
As a follow-up: the request for this 'correction' came as an e-mail from a clerk at the major AMC that begins with "L"...which is famous for issuing formal QA notices which get logged into their system as notes to the order (at least before we are paid our fee!). The clerk claims it originally came from the lender's reviewer. I've already been paid, so the giant L is sorta stuck.
In this case, an 'official' QA notice has not been sent. I told their clerk that I did not consider this to be a valid QA notice, and so far I have not even responded....and I don't intend to unless backed into a corner.
Now....on to another subject that has been discussed in posts here...having to do with the difference between the form page 1, top of form page 2, and the MC form.
In the grand scheme of things, mama fannie believes that 'neighborhood' (page 1) = comparable properties (pg 2 & MC). That might be the case in major urban areas, but it absolutely is not in the areas I (and many other appraisers) work.
After the wonderful, screwed up MC Form was issued, I decided that my responsibility is to appraise the subject property and use similar comparables only, regardless of what other types of properties exist in the general neighborhood. Reporting on page 1 Neighborhood section is for COMPARABLE properties, not every friggin' type of property within the necessary neighborhood distance from the subject.
I have this statement on the MC form:
"Reported trends on this 1004MC Form and for the Neighborhood section on Page 1 of the major report form are analyzed from similar-to-subject comparable properties within the defined neighborhood, and/or from competing neighborhoods in the nearby market area if travel outside the immediate neighborhood was necessary. Since some appraiser-defined neighborhoods often contain a mix of properties that may not be comparatively similar to the subject, the trends of those neighborhood area dissimilar properties are not deemed directly relevant to the subject's appraisal assignment."
When I am appraising the 1,500 s/f rambler, the 900 sf and 2,300 sf homes in the same general neighborhood have no actual credible or appropriate relevance to my assignment. Believe me, I have areas like that out here. I look for dwellings that are about 80% to 120% of the subject size - those are the comparables I care about because they have similar uses and marketability to buyers.
You have to remember one thing....the national 'forms' were initially developed in the early 1960's when homes and developments were quite different than now. Then mama fannie decided they were the top dog in the 1980's. That's when the form neighborhood criteria was established by them, with the original URAR. And as I said, in many cases their concept does not apply in the real world, especially when differing subdivisions hopscotch across cities. The forms as they exist today are basically junk science. On this, Joan Trice and I agree.
In this case, an 'official' QA notice has not been sent. I told their clerk that I did not consider this to be a valid QA notice, and so far I have not even responded....and I don't intend to unless backed into a corner.
Now....on to another subject that has been discussed in posts here...having to do with the difference between the form page 1, top of form page 2, and the MC form.
In the grand scheme of things, mama fannie believes that 'neighborhood' (page 1) = comparable properties (pg 2 & MC). That might be the case in major urban areas, but it absolutely is not in the areas I (and many other appraisers) work.
After the wonderful, screwed up MC Form was issued, I decided that my responsibility is to appraise the subject property and use similar comparables only, regardless of what other types of properties exist in the general neighborhood. Reporting on page 1 Neighborhood section is for COMPARABLE properties, not every friggin' type of property within the necessary neighborhood distance from the subject.
I have this statement on the MC form:
"Reported trends on this 1004MC Form and for the Neighborhood section on Page 1 of the major report form are analyzed from similar-to-subject comparable properties within the defined neighborhood, and/or from competing neighborhoods in the nearby market area if travel outside the immediate neighborhood was necessary. Since some appraiser-defined neighborhoods often contain a mix of properties that may not be comparatively similar to the subject, the trends of those neighborhood area dissimilar properties are not deemed directly relevant to the subject's appraisal assignment."
When I am appraising the 1,500 s/f rambler, the 900 sf and 2,300 sf homes in the same general neighborhood have no actual credible or appropriate relevance to my assignment. Believe me, I have areas like that out here. I look for dwellings that are about 80% to 120% of the subject size - those are the comparables I care about because they have similar uses and marketability to buyers.
You have to remember one thing....the national 'forms' were initially developed in the early 1960's when homes and developments were quite different than now. Then mama fannie decided they were the top dog in the 1980's. That's when the form neighborhood criteria was established by them, with the original URAR. And as I said, in many cases their concept does not apply in the real world, especially when differing subdivisions hopscotch across cities. The forms as they exist today are basically junk science. On this, Joan Trice and I agree.
