Reconsideration of Value anyone?

[Sadie]

Right. The main difference is that now Lenders are required to inform borrowers that they can request an RoV. The details of what is required isn't much, if any, different that the procedure many lenders have been using for over a decade.

There is now a protocol and the new "comps" need to come with an explanation of why they are better than the original ones. Instead of the old days where you just got a list of properties and sales prices questioning if were had considered them. Its a few hoops that have to be jumped through before we see the ROV.

 

[Sadie]

I truly wish we could charge extra whenever an ROV is not connected to a material error. But the reality is that we can not because of the TRID appraisal fee rules ( read up on it ). I mean, yes, we can charge the client extra , but it would have to come out of their pocket. Not that I have a problem with that, but a client would probably cut off an appraiser for doing it.

The solution is, at some point, to raise our upfront fee, with the view that there will be more ROV- plus every new reg or guideline coming from the GSEs, increasing the workload and level of scrutiny. More and more time, "defending" a value ( usually for being too low, so it definitely acts as a pressure ), and the "accuracy" expectation is impossible to meet. It becomes a collision of interests because the RE market is imperfect, and participants do not always act rationally or pay a standard $ amount for X or Y.

In all of my years, I have only had a handful of ROVs. I don't anticipate this will increase the number (fingers crossed)

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

" The main difference is that now Lenders are required to inform borrowers that they can request an RoV."

This was brought up at the Appraiser Expo. It is actually a good thing. They argued that most lawsuits stem from a borrower frustrated that there is no other way to express recourse. By having the lender essentially say, "got a beef with the appraisal? Here is how you can respond.", they are more likely to not chose a legal course.

Did Marin City appraisal or one in Baltimore that are being sued not get ROVs? Seems the biggest indicator is if they can get another appraiser to hit the number.

 

[Sadie]

Did Marin City appraisal or one in Baltimore that are being sued not get ROVs? Seems the biggest indicator is if they can get another appraiser to hit the number.

I think the one in Baltimore referred to other sales, but not sure if there was an actual request for ROV. The Marin Ciy one was just such a hot mess, I think they were just irritated that the appraiser didn't use comps in the higher priced areas and stuck to the immediate market.

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

I think the one in Baltimore referred to other sales, but not sure if there was an actual request for ROV. The Marin Ciy one was just such a hot mess, I think they were just irritated that the appraiser didn't use comps in the higher priced areas and stuck to the immediate market.

The Marin County one is like a toxic creeping ground pollution. As I'm slogging through my mandatory CE for RE license renewal, that case is referred to as an example of how racially biased appraisers are, saying although they shouldn't HAVE to, sellers should consider removing all ethnic and religious evidence of who might live in the house, and actually have one of their white friends be at the house to let the appraiser in. So that's what they are teaching real estate licensees in that course. We are being painted with a broad brush, and that is annoying, as I doubt there are many appraisers who are judging value by the ethnicity of personal property in a house rather than the sticks and bricks, compared to the other sticks and bricks in the market area. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the individuals that do that need to be in a different line of work.

 

[Zoe]

The Marin County one is like a toxic creeping ground pollution. As I'm slogging through my mandatory CE for RE license renewal, that case is referred to as an example of how racially biased appraisers are, saying although they shouldn't HAVE to, sellers should consider removing all ethnic and religious evidence of who might live in the house, and actually have one of their white friends be at the house to let the appraiser in. So that's what they are teaching real estate licensees in that course. We are being painted with a broad brush, and that is annoying, as I doubt there are many appraisers who are judging value by the ethnicity of personal property in a house rather than the sticks and bricks, compared to the other sticks and bricks in the market area. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the individuals that do that need to be in a different line of work.

I would almost bet a prior appraisal was done on the marin County one. I would have turned flips to get my hands on that prior appraisal and anything else I could from the family.

Idk. They may have been rich and paid cash for the work they did on that house.

They may have done the work themselves for all I know.

 

[sputnam]

You'd have to look at the details.. but, the RoV process isn't open ended. The Client or borrower does not get to send unlimited sales that you have to consider and respond to. They don't get to keep coming back over and over if their first RoV doesn't go the way they want it to. The data or errors that are pointed out in the RoV have to be relevant. More than a decade ago, the policy at Rels was... one and done.

Let's be honest. Even the very best appraisers screw up sometimes. Some appraisers screw up regularly. That's inevitable when fees lead appraisers to rush to completion and when Client expectations are delivery in a day or two.

 

[Sadie]

I would almost bet a prior appraisal was done on the marin County one. I would have turned flips to get my hands on that prior appraisal and anything else I could from the family.

Idk. They may have been rich and paid cash for the work they did on that house.

They may have done the work themselves for all I know.

If I recall correctly, they tried to sell it, but the agent told them they would lose money on it, so they remodeled the home. It was only when they refinanced for the what third, fourth time (?) that the appraisal actually confirmed what the RE agent had told them a few years prior, that the value of the home was less than they owed. Of course it was the last appraser's fault, not the previous appraisers who may have over-valued the property or their own fault for throwing good money after bad.

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

It sounds like the earlier appraiser told them what they wanted to hear, the real estate agent told them what they didn't want to hear (cuz they thought they knew their market better), so they fought the market by over-improving and the last appraiser wasn't buyin' it. So he's toast.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Saw this post elsewhere, an ROV request from a lender. This is how I expected the new rules to play out. I don't think the intended influence could be any clearer. I wonder what consequences the lender faces if their conclusion are found incorrect (rhetorical)?

"Adjustments should reflect market behavior, not necessarily the exact dollar amount of a concession. Please explain.

Based on my experience with underwriting transactions for homes sold by this builder, it is typical for buyers who buy homes in this builder's developments to receive such credits and the market has already accounted for it in the sale prices. Please explain the rationale for making negative deductions. The market sale prices already reflect the value with these concessions. Comp #1 and #2 also have the same $20,000 deduction - these are like properties with like credits, from the same builder. Making these deductions artificially lowers the value.

In my opinion as the underwriter, a deduction for seller credits is not justified and this report/opinion of value is materially deficient. Please ask him to explain his decision to make these dollar-for-dollar deductions in full, or update the report with his reconsideration of the opinion value accordingly - with a reminder that per HUD Guidelines, "The Mortgagee must report appraisals replaced due to material deficiencies to the State Appraiser Regulatory Agency"."