Revision Request

[Eli]

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

I won’t be patiently waiting for your reply.

I won’t be waiting for an authority you are not.

 

[djd09]

Notice how they skip over the second appraisal options. Case closed.

 

[DWiley]

Depends on the the alternative sales data

These must be appropriate comparables, not higher priced sales sent over for their higher price point to target a value, otherwise the lender is in violation where they are (3) seeking to influence an appraiser or otherwise to encourage a targeted value in order to facilitate the making or pricing of the transaction;

(3) Permitted actions. Examples of actions that do not violate paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) include: (i) Asking a person that prepares a valuation to consider additional, appropriate property information, including information about comparable properties, to make or support a valuation;

No, it does not depend on the alternate data, at all - it depends on whether there is attempt to pressure/influence.

You keep re-writing it to say “appropriate comps”, but it just simply does not say that. It says "appropriate data" and goes on to note that appropriate dat includes information about comparable sales. That is an important distinction that you keep wanting to avoid, and the wording has been consistent throughout - from its appearance in DF to its transition into IFR and TILA. You keeping arguing otherwise, but despite your zeal, you have been able to provide exactly ZERO citations that support your claim.

Now, let's look at an example. Suppose we have a subject property that is in a highrise condo with only three unit types. (trying to keep it simple) The subject property, a 2BR unit, is in a non-disclosure state, and the appraiser can find no sales of other 2BR units. So he/she uses a couple of 1BR units, a couple of 3BR units, and a couple of 2BR units from another complex.

Then, there is an ROV that contains 3 recent sales of 2BR units in the subject complex that the appraiser did not have. If the lender demands, "Use these better comps" that is still a violation - even if the sales ARE better than what the appraiser used.

Conversely, if the appraiser had 5 sales of units with identical floor plans, and the ROV asked the appraiser to explain why sales with other floor plans were not used, that is NOT a violation, as long as it is simply a request for information, not a demand

The violation is created by the influence (or attempt to influence), not by the data and/or its similarity to the subject.

My view is simple - I think the language (as written, not how I would want it written) basically allows one to question/inquire about virtually any sale without it being a violation. On the other hand, it is a violation if one makes demands, regardless of how great the alternate comps might be. Now, the Fannie rules about data from CU are very different, but that is not the topic at hand.

Having said that, no one with any business sense wants to waste time. So, it is prudent to have processes in place for basic screening of alternate sales data. SFRs should not be offered up if the subject is a multi. Sales should be actual sales that were available as of the effective date. etc. etc. But, those things are based on good business, not on regulatory requirements. Also, as an appraiser I don't want appraisers harassed with endless requests. That just isn't fair. So we do limit the number of sales that can be provided, and provide only one opportunity. Neither of those is mandated, but they are my view of what is good practice.

As M pointed out, there is absolutely no law that requires the appraiser to respond in any certain format, or to even respond at all. Just as there is no law that says that a lender must work with an appraiser who refuses to respond to ROV inquiries. That stuff is just business and has nothing to do with regulations. Anyone who wants to cop an attitude to a client is free to do so, but they probably should not then go crying about what happens as a result.

I am done. Peace out.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not interpreting anything.

It's all there.


View attachment 35351

It's your interpretation of the violation that you're going to have a tough time selling. Bear in mind there will be an opposing viewpoint tendered and the natural AMC-hostility appraisers have won't be a persuasive argument.

 

[djd09]

It won't be hard to prove. Retain your emails. Document all conversations. In Ohio it is 'one party consent'. hahahaha

 

[Meandering]

And,
Gladys exit stage left,

Now just the pips

 

[George Hatch]

Not an argument.

 

[Meandering]

Nothing to argue. I asked Danny for his honest response, and the pips stepped in while Gladys exited stage left.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Notice how they skip over the second appraisal options. Case closed.

In my private party appraisals for marketing, I always recommend they obtain a second appraisal after getting a BPO or CMA that is significantly different from my own.

 

[residentialguy]

You keep re-writing it to say “appropriate comps”, but it just simply does not say that. It says "appropriate data" and goes on to note that appropriate dat includes information about comparable sales. That is an important distinction that you keep wanting to avoid

Hmmm...funny, here was your take earlier

​

Appropriate is in the sentence and comparable sales are included, not as an exception. It does not say, "Asking a person that prepares a valuation to consider additional, appropriate property information, with the exception that the lender can require the appraiser to consider inappropriate higher priced sales sent over for their higher price point to target a value." >>> Which, per your own words whether D-F allows that or not..."Clearly, NO, that is NOT allowed"

So, I'm not "re-writing" anything, rather stating the true intent of D-F...as YOU concurred: that is not allowed!

Therefore, ROVs must be for "appropriate" "comparables". If they are just higher priced sales sent over for their higher price point to target a value, the lender is in violation of D-F for seeking to influence an appraiser or otherwise to encourage a targeted value in order to facilitate the making or pricing of the transaction;

Do you think that the D-F comp alternative exception gives Lenders the right to send over less comparable sales for an ROV simply because of their higher sale price to try to get the appraiser to raise the Market Value?
"Clearly, no, that is not allowed" - DWiley