Retrospective Appraisal - Special Form/Addendum Required?

[RNMOVR]

now we are getting somewhere

I appreciate you are a good fellow or fellowette... … That is why I was bothering with this.

I'm still trying to figure out how to do multiple quote. So please bear with me on the unusual format. Fellow and I do appreciate your time.

The 03/2005 forms because of the prohibition of modifying the SOW are all volatile. The older forms did not contain that issue. Some of us have software that prevents us from separating that 03/2005 SOW from the page one and SCA pages of that form. If separated (not used) and something like ClickForms “Free Form Text” tool allowing complete redaction of the preprinted form language itself, it might be doable. But most appraisers cannot do that with their software. Use of the older forms would therefore be strongly advisable.

I use Wintotal, but I could modify the PDF version with some external software. So if i modified the 03/05 2055 and removed/altered the certifications, then I would be legit? Too what extent should these be redacted?

The overwhelming difference is nobody is asking you to sign your certification regarding moon landings or Elvis. Per USPAP, we cannot use EAs to such an extent that the results are no longer credible. Has the “basis” for such sweeping EAs gone a bridge too far in your case of using numerous items out of another appraisal report and EAing all of them? You decide. For an intended use of reviewing is it normal and customary of the trade? Was it for what the intended use presented for your assignment to be doing that when the other appraisal was NOT the subject of a review?

I was playing devil’s advocate. I try not use sarcasm as a argumentative tool. But when it’s all you have (Sarcasm is a week minds rebuttal). I specifically stated in my disclosure that the purpose of this valuation was not to review the client supplied appraisal that was used as a data source. I would EA everything if I sourced out of MLS, assessment records or anywhere. I do not see the degrees of relevance.

Again, you did not get this information directly from the other real estate appraiser. End of story. I feel your stand here is like stating in a report that you asked the borrower to call your disinterested party to ask about the borrower information and that the borrower called you back to say the disinterested party confirmed all of it !!! Sorry, you can't get it from the borrower and then claim it was all confirmed when you have no proof of that of any kind. You'd get killed in court trying that one! Nice try however.

So what would you do with a lender supplied flood certification that contradicts your automated flood mapping? So are you saying because I am not an intended user of the original report that I cannot rely on it?

Maybe Brother DeSaix can word it better. I guess I failed to get you past the ketchup and into the mustard.

I've just always loved that metaphor..

It doesn't violate the certifications. That is the entire point. The certifications raise the level of the bar to a demand the appraiser verifies what the borrower told them. There has never been any restriction that we can't listen to a borrower or use borrower information. But it has to be confirmed, not just taken for granted.

Then why have that option as a check box. Why not just list the verification source since it is more reliable. I think some of the reports conflict themselves.

Good for you! I'll not put myself forth as the bearer of all truth. Many disagree with me. Search the Oregon ACLB web site and read their most recent publication to all Oregon appraisers regarding warning all of us about using 03/2005 Fannie forms for private party work. If you don't see the other issues involved when using them inappropriately for other uses that involve trying to supersede the SOW.... It's your license. If I were in your state, the only solution would be to constantly stay up on the result(s) of board complaint filings then. Given most of them will likely be two years in arrears all the time, that really sucks, and that is a very serious board issue to have to live with.

I have always used GP forms for non-lending work. The man got me down a long time ago and I’m not up for that fight. You’re dealing with the dirty south. We roll not just to a different beat, but a whole other genre.

 

[RNMOVR]

grumble grumble

Not that I want to upset your tummy and give you a headache. But I can't get passed a very simple question. If the prior appraisal is deemed to be credible, reliable, by the client and intended users, why are they asking for a retrospective analyses using the same effective date as this "credible" appraisal report used?

They are doing it not to determine if the subject data used in the original appraisal was correct, but to determine if the final reconciliation of value and comp selection was reasonably correct. Its almost like a segmented review. I asked them why don’t they just order a field review? The drone simply answered, “Good Question”.

And if you were to have reached a completely different value conclusion than this other prior appraisal report, what does that say of the "credibilty" of the other report, or of your analyses? I would think you'd better be able to explain that one away via due to a different SOW.... because if not, you just EA'd a whole bunch of information out of a prior report, that we can bet our tail feathers that in the event of a financial loss, somebody is going to claim was unreliable and not credible.

Mine was $1500 lower.

So are you really sure you want to be doing retrospective analyses full of EA's to use stuff out of other appraisal reports that just happen to be of the same effective date as your retrospective one? Because your kidding yourself if you don't think what could be happening is revolving around a suspect appraisal report you are using for a "disinterested third party source," and what ALL of the intended uses are going to be.

Not really and typically I would have told the client to call an SRA, but my volume is not what it used to be and the thought of re-entering the normal work force is not appealing to say the least. So I must expand my horizons and learn a new trick or two… Speaking of tricks aren’t we all just pimps and wh@res? So the institutions (i.e. lenders, clients, the man) are the pimps, what does that make us?

P.S. My radar says the real "WHY" the assignment has been ordered, versus using the prior report as a "disinterested third party source" probably makes the entire SOW versus the intended use a complete nonstarter.

Good point. Especially since there are other data sources (i.e. MLS) for this property available. My guess is that they are not questioning the original appraisal's subject data, merely questioning the data used to determine the final reconciliation of value.

 

[residentialguy]

RNMOVR

Edit your post #41 above. Remove all the forward slashes in the [/quotes] that start the paragraph you want to quote. "/" means you are ending a quotation. Take it out when you start the quote.