REO company requesting a 1004 to be used on a 4-plex

[TITAN1]

Hmmm.. the old 1004 has a section in it for # of units, comments please.

Hmmmm My Grandmother was 64 years old in 1988.....Hmmmmm Is she 84 today or is she just dead, I wonder?

 

[Oh No Not Him]

it sounds like a REO company i do work for..the orders always say "not needed for lending purposes"....so the 6/93 version is used (ive only done sf for them)....but they say if its a multi to call them with 2 quotes...1025 & 1004

 

[Dirty Harry]

Hmmmm My Grandmother was 64 years old in 1988.....Hmmmmm Is she 84 today or is she just dead, I wonder?

Hmm.. I'm sorry for your loss?

 

[CANative]

Using the 1004 form could be a violation of the Conduct Section of the Ethics Rule.....An appraiser must not communicate results in a MISLEADING or fraudulent manner. The 1004 report is misleading since it is for SFR.

Additionally, Standards Rule 2-2(b)(vii) says the appraiser must summarize the scope of work and the preprinted scope of work does not fly with the 1004 for a 4--plex and definitely not for asset valuation purposes.

Finally, in the Scope of Work Rule, under Scope of Work Acceptability the comment section says..."what an appraiser's peers' actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment."

Come on Tim. Please.

I can't imagine a state appraisal board punishing an appraiser for attempted form fraud. This is the same type of "comp checks are illegal" logic.

So write an adequate scope of work. I just wrote a two page SOW for an assignment I recently completed using a plain jane 1004.

There are peers and then there are peers.

Because there is no form law the peers' actions would would have to involve them reporting the appraisal on the same form in order for it to be a same and/or similar assignment.

 

[Michigan CG]

Come on Tim. Please.

I can't imagine a state appraisal board punishing an appraiser for attempted form fraud. This is the same type of "comp checks are illegal" logic.

So write an adequate scope of work. I just wrote a two page SOW for an assignment I recently completed using a plain jane 1004.

There are peers and then there are peers.

Because there is no form law the peers' actions would would have to involve them reporting the appraisal on the same form in order for it to be a same and/or similar assignment.

The state does not punish an appraiser for form fraud. But the from contains scope of work statements that are not pertinent to certain assignments, and it is clearly for lending use. If the appraiser is too lazy to redact those statements it will show up, and starts the discrediting of the opposing appraiser.

I realize YOU write a detailed scope of work, but many of your peers do not.

How many threads have been put on this forum in the last three days stating they have to go to court for one of their appraisals? Two I know of, and they are clueless as what to do.

Write every report like you were going to court or in front of your state's appraisal board, because it might happen. Every report should be credible.

Your peers are the state board also......

 

[CANative]

Someone mentioned that it was the old 1004 that was requested. And I'm thinking that the REO client probably doesn't really want or need this appraisal reported on the new 1004. It's more likely that there is some sort of failure to communicate along the line.

But even if they dug their heels in and wanted what they wanted an appraiser could still provide the service. The pre-printed drivel also graciously gives the appraiser permission to expand the scope of work by including additional research, blah, blah, blah. And the pre-printed instructions at the top of page 4 do not specifically exclude a 4 unit property. The only property types excluded are manufactured homes or a unit in a condo or co-op.

If I was in this position I would tell them to select another form or allow me to make the decision for them.

 

[TITAN1]

Hmm.. I'm sorry for your loss?

Thanks so much Donn. Just got me to thinking!!!

Professional Vacationer Period!!!

Love your Line, Hope you didn't mind me using it!

 

[Webbed Feet]

Someone mentioned that it was the old 1004 that was requested. <..... snip....>.

But that someone was never the O.P. As the O.P. only posted twice as I could see, I don't think the O.P. ever said that and I missed it.

And the pre-printed instructions at the top of page 4 do not specifically exclude a 4 unit property. The only property types excluded are manufactured homes or a unit in a condo or co-op.

But why did you graciously leave out the fact that page four, just before what you said it said, also says the form is designed to report an appraisal of a one-unit property or a one-unit with an accessory unit.............?

Webbed.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Hi Web,

Just playing the devils advocate tonight! :new_multi:

And if they want it on the 6/93 version 1004? It has a section in it for # of units. As I stated in earlier post, I personally haven't had to cross this bridge with them yet.

Yes, it does have places for "units" on it. But I have issues. The standard for income plex properties is Gross Building Area, not Gross Living Area. I find the form inadequate for dealing with each of the units if they have drastically different "condition" ratings. Just the general lack of detail in reporting on each unit seems a Standard Two violation if the appraiser just stops with using the old 1004 and fails to supplement it considerably.

Would not it make more sense to use the old 1025 and not complete the income section if under USPAP it was deemed unnecessary?

Webbed.

 

[Blueprint]

The 1004 is not designed to do units on, period. Webbed is right on. You could not provide a credible report on that form alone that would not be misleading.