Rebuttal letter samples anyone

[NICK SIMS]

need info on where to find samples of rebutal letters to underwrtrs and
reviewers, searched already within af no samples any help
will be appreciatedh34r:

 

[Murray Bloom]

need info on where to find samples of rebutal letters to underwrtrs and
reviewers, searched already within af no samples any help
will be appreciatedh34r:

I'm not sure if this will help you, but it's a copy of a rebuttal that I've done to a flawed field review. Sorry about the CAPS. For some reason, they like it that way.

THE APPRAISER NOTES THAT THE MARKED-UP COPIES OF HIS ORIGINAL APPRAISAL INCLUDE MARGIN COMMENTS (PRESUMABLY BY THE REVIEWER) WHICH HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY CUT OFF IN THE COPYING/FAXING PROCESS AND ARE NO LONGER READABLE. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS GENERALLY REFER TO WHAT HAS BEEN INDICATED ON THE APPRAISAL FIELD REVIEW (2000) FORM.


SECTION I
QUESTION #5:

THE REVIEWER NOTED THE DISCREPANCY IN CONDITION OF CARPET AND INTERIOR FINISHES AND UPGRADES BETWEEN THE PRIOR APPRAISAL AND THE APPRAISAL UNDER REVIEW. THE REVIEWER STATED THAT DETERIORATION OF THESE ITEMS WAS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LIKELY. THE FACT WAS THAT THE TENANT HAS NOT TAKEN GOOD CARE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE INTERIOR HAD, INDEED, BECOME DEGRADED. THIS WAS STATED BY THE BORROWER PRIOR TO THE INSPECTION AND APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN THE CASE.

QUESTION #7:

THE REVIEWER STATED THAT THE PROPERTY AT zzz S. FULTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR COMPARABLE #1. WHEN RESEARCHING COMPARABLES FOR THE ORIGINAL APPRAISAL, THAT PROPERTY WAS DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT SOLD AT BELOW MARKET VALUE AND THE LISTING PROVIDED NO INFORMATION AS TO ITS CONDITION, STATING ONLY THAT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FELL THROUGH AND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING SOLD “AS IS.” THIS IMPLIED THAT REPAIRS WERE NEEDED, BUT DOES NOT INDICATE THE EXTENT OR COST OF REPAIRS NECESSARY TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO MARKET CONDITION. THE SUGGESTED COMPARABLE SOLD AT $10-20,000 BELOW MARKET, YET THE REVIEWER PROVIDED ONLY $5,000 FOR REPAIRS OF, AND MARKET REACTION TO, THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE - AN APPARENT INCONSISTENCY.

THE REVIEWER NOTED THAT COMPARABLE #1 WAS FAR LARGER THAN THE SUBJECT, WHICH WAS TRUE. THE APPRAISER JUDGED THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN SIZE AND ROOM COUNT WERE QUANTIFIABLE AND ADJUSTED FOR SAME. THIS COMPARABLE WAS ALSO INCLUDED TO BRACKET THE UPPER END OF THE G.L.A.RANGE.

THE REVIEWER CORRECTLY NOTED THAT COMPARABLE #2 IS LOCATED ON A STREET THAT SEES LESS VEHICULAR TRAFFIC THAN THE OTHER PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, BASED ON SALE PRICES, IT APPEARS THAT THE MARKET FOR THIS TYPE OF RENTAL PROPERTY TAKES LITTLE NOTE OF TRAFFIC VOLUME.

SECTION II
ITEM 1:

THE REVIEWER COMMENTED THAT THE APPRAISER IGNORED THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR IN FAVOR OF A LARGER PROPERTY. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. PLEASE SEE THE COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 7, ABOVE.

SUMMARY OF (REVIEWER’S) VALUE CONCLUSION:

THE REVIEWER NOTES THAT COMPARABLE #1 WAS, IN ADDITION TO BEING LARGER, IN BETTER CONDITION THAN THE SUBJECT. ITS LISTING MENTIONED NUMEROUS UPGRADES AND UPDATES, WHICH MADE THE CONDITION DIFFERENCE EASILY QUANTIFIABLE; AS COMPARED TO THE SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT COMPARABLE FOR WHICH THE EXTENT OF NEEDED REPAIRS IS UNKNOWN.


APPRAISER’S SUMMARY - THE ORIGINAL APPRAISER MAINTAINS THAT THE ORIGINAL OPINION OF VALUE IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAN THE REVIEWER’S ADJUSTED VALUE.

THE REVIEWER NOTED IN A MARGIN COMMENT THAT SOME OF THE SUBJECT’S DEFERRED MAINTENANCE WAS STRUCTURAL IN NATURE. THE APPRAISER TAKES ISSUE WITH THIS ASSESSMENT. THE NOTED DAMAGE WAS TO DRYWALL/PLASTER FINISHES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED PAINT. THIS IS COSMETIC AT BEST, FUNCTIONAL AT WORST, AND IS NOT STRUCTURAL.

WHILE MUCH OF THE REVIEWER’S MARGIN COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CROPPED DURING COPYING/FAXING, IT APPEARS THAT HE OR SHE WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT VACANT AND/OR BOARDED PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SUBJECT AND, PRESUMABLY, ITS MARKET VALUE. WHILE THIS MAY BE TRUE, THE APPRAISER NOTES THAT THE CONDITION IS WIDESPREAD IN THE SUBJECT’S MARKET AREA AND MANY AREAS OF BALTIMORE CITY IN GENERAL. THE APPRAISER SUGGESTS THAT THIS FACTOR HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND INCORPORATED INTO THE VALUES OF ALL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE COMPARABLES USED.

 

[NICK SIMS]

thank you for info

 

[Jim Onderisin]

Nick: I'm curious about something. Is your client requiring a 'rebuttal letter'? Why is it necessary? If you were hired to do an appraisal and someone was hired to review the appraisal, each should stand on its own merit, no?

 

[Lee Lansford]

I have to ask: Since each situation and appraisal is unique, how might a sample rebuttal letter be of any assistance to you?

 

[hastalavista]

I have to ask: Since each situation and appraisal is unique, how might a sample rebuttal letter be of any assistance to you?

I have to ask also?

Jim-
A review can include in its engagement and scope the instructions to obtain clarification or additional information on the client's behalf (an example of this scope is included in AO-20) if considered necessary.
Of course, the original appraiser doesn't have to answer, if they don't want to!:happy: