Retro drive by

[Ted Markow]

Got and order from a source that is almost exclusively REO work. It states that it is a NON-REO Loan!! Hmmmm. They want a drive by with a date 2 years ago. Am I too close the the edge of the cliff on this one? It sounds to me like a cheap way of getting an appraisal because somthing is amiss with the one their client based the loan on.

What say ye?

My gut, because they all of a sudden are giving me some good work is I must tread carefully and at the leas is to put it on the old 2055 and write a bunch of disclaimers in the addendum. LIke the reliability of something thae lold that have had 2 years to change in condition or major changes. Even still standing in some cases. Etc etc etc

 

[RSW]

It would be the same thing as doing a retrospective appraisal on the old 1004. You are appraising the subject property as of a date in the past and not the present. I don't know how you would be able to use the new 2055 and make an extraordinary assumption. You would need to remove a few of the certifications in the old 2055 I think it is #8 & 9 in order to use that form.

 

[EVAUSA]

I get a lot of these retro-2055's as well. The client is usually a PMI company for a Bank Owned Property. I'm not sure if they are disputing the original appraisal to avoid paying the claim. Maybe someone else knows.

 

[Carnivore]

USPAP requires the Intended Use be stated. If you dont understand what they mean you should communicate with them again! Ftr, I did not see where it says you only have state one or more NOT INTENDED USE's.


Standards 1-2(b)

http://commerce.appraisalfoundation.org/html/USPAP2008/USPAP_folder/standards/Standards_Rule_1_2.htm

 

[Couch Potato]

Got and order from a source that is almost exclusively REO work. It states that it is a NON-REO Loan!! Hmmmm. They want a drive by with a date 2 years ago. Am I too close the the edge of the cliff on this one? It sounds to me like a cheap way of getting an appraisal because somthing is amiss with the one their client based the loan on.

What say ye?

My gut, because they all of a sudden are giving me some good work is I must tread carefully and at the leas is to put it on the old 2055 and write a bunch of disclaimers in the addendum. LIke the reliability of something thae lold that have had 2 years to change in condition or major changes. Even still standing in some cases. Etc etc etc

Why would it be cheap? Retro appraisals are a PITA. I certainly wouldn't do it for less than a current appraisal. :new_all_coholic:

 

[Restrain]

Loans are selected for any number of reasons. It could be that the lender is questionable, the borrower is questionable, the market is questionable. Or any number of other things. It doesn't necessarily mean that the loan is in default at this time. Rather, it could very weel be that there may be a credit lending issue that requred the loan to have another look taken at it.

Just use the 2055, appraise it as of the effective date of the appraisal. Don't use the old 2055.

 

[Renee Healion]

Just make sure you have good information from the time period that applies to your appraisal. It's just my preference, but I suggest you show your work in the report more than you might otherwise do. Demonstrate what you have used to develop your opinion, rather than just keeping it in your workfile.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Just make sure you have good information from the time period that applies to your appraisal. It's just my preference, but I suggest you show your work in the report more than you might otherwise do. Demonstrate what you have used to develop your opinion, rather than just keeping it in your workfile.

I think this is VERY good advice.

 

[Joshua Fookes]

Just use the 2055, appraise it as of the effective date of the appraisal. Don't use the old 2055.

Sure, just make a false statement on your final reconciliation which clearly states, this value is X as of X date which is the date of inspection.

I would educate your client as to WHY you can't use the newer 2055 for a retrospective assignment. READ the reconciliation statement at the bottom of page two to them. I just had a major AMC flip their policy because I pointed out to their chief appraiser that the preprinted verbiage does not allow for a retrospective value. She conceded and then ordered it on the Old 2055. I made some verbiage changes on the old form so that it was USPAP compliant and met the scope of work. Verbiage changes are not prohibited on the old form like they are on the new form.

BTW, mine was for a PMI company to establish a "variance" from the original appraisal that secured the loan.

Josh

 

[Marcia Langley]

Why would it be cheap? Retro appraisals are a PITA. I certainly wouldn't do it for less than a current appraisal. :new_all_coholic:

That's what I was thinking. The fee for this assignment should be more than for a standard 1004.

Retros should cost more than currents because the research is harder.

Exterior onlys should cost at least as musch as interiors because the research is harder.

Reviews with new opions of value should cost more than original appraisals because the review portion of the work is in addition to the appraisal portion of the work.

Fees should be based on the cost+profit it takes to produce them. Never on the form-type, and never on the form-size, and if you discount a fee because you don't have to measure, don't be shy of adding to the fee if that causes more research time.

===========

The new forms should not be used for retros.