Reviewer said: "County’s Public Records" cannot be used as a verification source in the Prior Sale History....

[glenn walker]

View attachment 47211

That's a good way to do it unfortunately I include the same data below including S/P Doc# and MLS# below in the analyses section because that gal at HUD said it was not enough to just place the Doc# and MLS# in the grid. Anyway like the way you do it and was doing it the same way but the gal at HUD said it all needed to be laid out in more detail .

 

[djd09]

the only thing that matters is if the information is correct. the USPAP police cannot fine you for being right.

 

[Cob]

I always state it last transferred on 1/1/2020 per Whatever County Doc.#12345

 

[Michigan CG]

Public records is not a verification source. It is a data source.

Find out if it was on the MLS. Find out from the current owner if the prior sale was arm's length. You probably already have their number to set up the inspection? This will give you a little bit of context for the sale that will convince someone that the prior sale supports or does not support your current value opinion.

YOu would hate the residential world where many appraisers in my area ONLY use the MLS for data and don't pull public records. In the residential world 99% of appraisers don't verify sales with anything but MLS and public records and 50% don't even pull public records as there is a fee to do that where I live.

 

[Michigan CG]

If what they mean is the public record being the information in NDC, Realist, FNC, etc. then they are not looking at "public records."

Exactly.

This subject could be debated in so many ways. USPAP defines data sources and verification. Some will argue that the data source (for residential) is the MLS and verification is some sort of public record (depending on the state/location). I was taught (commercial training) that the verification was contacting one of the Realtors involved or talking to the buyer or seller.

This forum is mostly about residential appraisal, so let us keep it to that. There are MANY appraisers who ONLY use the MLS as the data/verification source which does not abide by USPAP; they were trained to do that by their incompetent mentors. The AMCs (who claim QUALITY) will never flag this. Some appraisers use a data source that is NOT the ACTUAL public records but from what I can tell they are reciting the public records accurately so I would not have a problem with that should I review a report. The secondary source is repeating the actual public records. We have to learn to pick battles carefully.

SO, is verification by a Realtor involved or talking to a buyer or seller? I was trained that it is and I make attempts to verify with a Realtor for every sale I use in my residential reports. But, if we were to poll the typical residential appraiser that would not be the case for a vast majority and if I am exceeding what my peers do then I would be in compliance with USPAP even though I am violating USPAP according to some? Many of my "peers" would be violating USPAP for every single report they submitted depending on how "verification" is defined.

I think (know) that the residential lending world knows that most appraisers don't verify to the extent they should and I am pretty sure that the residential lending world knows that some appraisers ONLY use MLS data. These people are not stupid; they know what is going on. Does any semi-intelligent person think that Danny Willey does not know that 40% of the reports submitted are total garbage but are still better than an AVM?

They also know that a lot of the adjustments appraisers make are completely made up and unsupported but are still better than many AVMs or Realtor provided estimates.

Verification is part of the equation but in residential lending it is not the be-all when we are talking about millions of loans. There is always risk and those people know it and account for it. The reports I write that have twice the due dilligence are not written for the lender, they are written that way to protect me so that I can show to my state that I go above what my state requires and go above what my peers do.

 

[jay trotta]

Not recognizing assignment conditions and executing a scope of work to meet the conditions is probably a violation of the Competency Rule.

SO under the current "Limited" non public access to (in my area) Town Hall records research and Under current FNMA eased guidelines is this creating the potential "Competency Rule" violation ??

Prior to COVID-19 I had always reviewed documents at the Town Hall in which the subject is located to review ALL records; have been doing it this way since 1980, it allows one the ability to review Deed records for accuracy, site description and a whole lot more.

 

[Tom4value]

Reviewer said "County’s Public Records" cannot be used as a verification source in the Prior Sale History because this is considered too generic and must be more specific.

Has anyone experienced a similar revision request??!

What would be a more descriptive or more specific term for "County’s Public Records"?

Or is there another more reliable source for prior transfer history that i am not aware of?

Is this reviewer trying to create job security for him/her self, or am i being biased in my opinion?

Too generic.
I state, “Worcester County Registry of Deeds”. The user then knows specifically where to look. If there are previous sales, then you have to “analyze“ those sales and report your findings. I.e., “the sale from (date and price) was to an investor who then renovated the property and sold it on the open market in an arms length transaction on (date and price).”

 

[Renee Healion]

SO under the current "Limited" non public access to (in my area) Town Hall records research and Under current FNMA eased guidelines is this creating the potential "Competency Rule" violation ??

Prior to COVID-19 I had always reviewed documents at the Town Hall in which the subject is located to review ALL records; have been doing it this way since 1980, it allows one the ability to review Deed records for accuracy, site description and a whole lot more.

Same state, same research habits. I needed to see a recorded subdivision map in my town. I pay for access to several towns' land records, including this one, but maps are not included. I also needed to license dogs with the same Town Clerk office. Gotta walk and chew gum so I was there to do both. So the website said they were open again and the hours posted said the closing time is 3 PM. It was mid-day. I rang a bell, which had some camera I guess. It looked like Ring. The person answering said 'Call the Clerk's office. All the office numbers are listed on a page taped to the door.' I dialed the clerk's mere feet away and was told to use the drop box. I said The website says you are open. 'We are, but not to the public.' TILT! Red lights, ding ding ding, Even though I like Clerks the best and call them the librarians of the towns and so on and that Clerk in particular, but found myself incredulous at the parsing of the definition of OPEN. Never got from dog licenses to land records reason.

Rare good luck, an old expired listing of this in-fill type lot had an image of the map as an attachment and the signed approvals. And some people think you can just check a HBU box.

 

[CANative]

SO under the current "Limited" non public access to (in my area) Town Hall records research and Under current FNMA eased guidelines is this creating the potential "Competency Rule" violation ??

Prior to COVID-19 I had always reviewed documents at the Town Hall in which the subject is located to review ALL records; have been doing it this way since 1980, it allows one the ability to review Deed records for accuracy, site description and a whole lot more.

I think you read my comment without the context:

Its

Its not a USPAP issue , its a Fannie, Freddie, FHA, Guideline. Just do it they way you are doing it, if nobody is giving push back then it's fine. GSE Guidelines in general have nothing to do with USPAP and USPAP doesn't care how you do it and as far as if its never been listed or not been in MLS then just state who marketed it and sold it .

Not recognizing assignment conditions and executing a scope of work to meet the conditions is probably a violation of the Competency Rule.

The USPAP glitch is not from how one gets their data, the USPAP glitch is in how one reports it and whether or not the reporting is true and correct. If one claims "Public Records" or "County Records" and they are not actually looking at actual records but rather a third party's information regarding these records, then the claim can be seen as misleading (Ethics and/or Competency Rule.)

The MLS provides a listing date, closing date, sale price and usually type of loan (and sometimes the presence of sale conditions.) Data aggregators report the last sale, deed recording number, and sale price but usually not the type of financing, if any, nor the terms of the contract. If one looks a little further, they can match up the type of loan that coincides with the sale data and this can confirm the type of loan which can also match up the the MLS data.

I work two CA Counties (mainly) which are both rural and have a land area that is probably bigger than your state. There are three County offices in that area (almost 6,000 square miles) and driving to the sticks and bricks offices is impractical.

 

[Renee Healion]

We know we are small. And are reminded of it often here. LOL

ps 2 counties = 25% of our counties.