Retro review

[Michael Martin]

I'm doing a retrospective driveby review on an appraisal which is proving to be interesting to say the least. I've uncovered numerous issues with the orginal appraisal(surprise, surprise) but was wondering how you all might handle this issue in particular. The house is a 2.5 story colonial. The original appraiser states finished 3rd floor in the appraisal but the assessor has it as unfinished. I should also note that it is quite common in this area for the assessor to show unfinished attics when in fact, in many cases, they may be. Would you just state you could not verify third floor finish and exclude it from GLA?

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

1. All reviews are retrospective, so no need to state so.

2. Interior pictures?

3. If the appraisal states it is finished and you have no way to prove otherwise, then it would be wise to base your review on the data as reported in the appraisal based on a physical inspection by that appraiser.

4, Stick to the facts and just state what you do and do not know. Sometimes skippy has to be given a benefit of doubt when there is no factual data to prove otherwise.

 

[Mztk1]

con·di·tion Audio Help /kənˈdɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-dish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.

Read the Scope of Work at the top of page 3. I believe the final line on "condition of the interior" encompasses your topic, based on the definition of condition above. Since you know it is "quite common" for tax data to be wrong on this issue, you do not have "evidence to the contrary" against what is reported in the appraisal.

If that is the only issue under the "Improvement section" that could make you check "No", then I'd check #5 "yes" and explain the contradiction between the report and tax data in the narrative section, state my knowledge of tax data's inconsistency, but also state that the report would have been stronger had it disclosed the discrepency in the report and that you make the assumption that the condition reported is accurate.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Urban, Suburban, Rural location of the Subject? B&Z ordinances applicable?

 

[Diego Lopez]

I'm doing a retrospective driveby review on an appraisal which is proving to be interesting to say the least. I've uncovered numerous issues with the orginal appraisal(surprise, surprise) but was wondering how you all might handle this issue in particular. The house is a 2.5 story colonial. The original appraiser states finished 3rd floor in the appraisal but the assessor has it as unfinished. I should also note that it is quite common in this area for the assessor to show unfinished attics when in fact, in many cases, they may be. Would you just state you could not verify third floor finish and exclude it from GLA?

Unless you've been there and know for a fact that the attic is unfinished, you have to rely on the data that is on the appraisal. State in your review that you were unable to verify this data and you assume it to be correct or ask the client to convert the assignment into a full retrospective appraisal.

 

[Webbed Feet]

1. All reviews are retrospective, so no need to state so.

<....... snip......>

In developing an appraisal review, the reviewer must:
(a)
identify the reviewer’s client and intended users, the intended use of the reviewer’s opinions and conclusions, and the purpose of the assignment; (note43 )

Comment: : The intended use is in the context of the client’s use of the reviewer’s opinions and conclusions; examples include, without limitation, quality control, audit, qualification, or confirmation. The purpose of the assignment relates to the reviewer’s objective; examples include, without limitation, to evaluate compliance with relevant USPAP requirements, with a client’s requirements, or with applicable regulations.
A reviewer must ascertain whether the assignment includes the development of his or her own opinion of value about the subject property of the work under review.

If the assignment includes the reviewer developing his or her own opinion of value about the subject property of the work under review, that opinion is an appraisal whether it:

• <LI class=kadov-p style="MARGIN-LEFT: -20px">concurs with the opinion of value in the work under review, as of the date of value in that work or a different date of value; or
• differs from the opinion of value in the work under review, as of the date of value in that work or a different date of value.

(b)
identify the:

(i)
subject of the appraisal review assignment,

(ii)
effective date of the review,

(iii)
property and ownership interest appraised (if any) in the work under review,

(iv)
date of the work under review and the effective date of the opinion or conclusion in the work under review, and

(v)
appraiser(s) who completed the work under review, unless the identity was withheld.


Comment: The subject of an appraisal review assignment may be all or part of a report, a workfile, or a combination of these, and may be related to an appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment.

Ahhhhhh! So let me see. We have to identify the effective date of the review, and our value opinions can be the prior original appraisals date of value or some other date of value....... But all reviews are retrospective..... ​

Let me think that over for a bit..... Hmmmm SMT-3 is not a part of Standards Rule 3. But rather a separate SMT regarding a real estate appraisal value opinons, not reviewing. Funny, I don't see a darn thing in USPAP about Retrospective Reviews in Standard Three, or in SMT-3. Only retrospective value opinions, which are not reviews, they are real estate appraisals. ​

Maybe I missed something?​

Webbed.​