ROV Response: Shield Required

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Subject of the re-fi assignment is a 106-year-old SFR recently guttted and re-built by owner who is an architect, on a lot in a prestigious subdivision, but fronting a busy public road that defines a neighborhoodd border, adjacent to the vehicular entrance to perhaps the largest recreational venue in Southern Cali. Owner provided an itemized list of renovaion factors "confirmed by the visual observation of the appraiser," who also provided variou comps including a few that were far away but that reflected the externality.

ROV arrives with specific addesses as well as a list of $250,000 of expenses overlooked in the original list, which enhance the subject condition in the SCA, as well as the reproduction expenses in the CA dialogue box.

Comps recommended by the ROV, as well as the ROV conncers about the dissimilarity betweeen the appraiser's opinion of maket value and the insurable value cited in his policy, could easily have been the basis of a well-conceived 15-minute response that debunked the ROV in its entirety.

HOWEVER, after about 5 hours of analysis, the appraiser provided a very thorough explanation of his decision to revise the original OV significanty, by about 14%--presumably enhancing Public Trust without comproming his integrity because of the "complexity" of the improvemements, as well as the previously-unknown renovation factors.

POINT OF THIS POST is that I'm kinda haunted by JG's perspective a few months ago that to change an OV exposes an appraiser to the liability based upon his or her "admission" that the original OV was incorrect. IMO the reponse I submitted was textbook example of the potential ROV functionality. Won't ever happen of course but it seeems that the practitioner could be shielded from potential liability when responding "favorably" to a ROV. That' all I have to say.

 

[J Grant]

Sounds like you did a good job - I can not comment on the OA or the ROV change of value of course but you were thorough

Taht is not exactly what I said, but I said something along those lines.

 

[Tom D]

Changing a value due to new unknown info will not get you into trouble. There are certain type professiobal people that i would talk to when i did the apraisal, to avoid that rov.

I know jgrant, we aren't their friends.

 

[J Grant]

Changing a value due to new unknown info will not get you into trouble. There are certain type professiobal people that i would talk to when i did the apraisal, to avoid that rov.

I know jgrant, we aren't their friends.

If the new unknown information consists of cherry-picked, higher price sales that are less supportable as comps than your original comps, it actually can get you into trouble.

I appreciate supporting a market value opinion, not to avoid an ROV. They are not that frequent, and they are a price to pay for doing the work.

 

[Tom D]

There was only 1 time that i changed a value. There was 1 sale that i missed in the search. The staff review appraiser, direct lender good guy, had it. So easy peasy, i changed the value higher.
It was the needed match model higher row home sale. And there was 1 time after talking to the realtor in the vacant house, i changed my opinion on the value to being higher. It was on the edge of 2 neighborhoods. And i was on the fence at the start.

I just convinced 2 lenders that the appraisal they had were too low. Helped out my lender friends. The appraisals were not good, a bunch of mistakes and not knowing the urban neighborhoods.

 

[sputnam]

Sounds like you did what an appraiser is supposed to do. You reconsidered your valuation in the light of additional information provided to you after delivery of your appraisal report.

 

[J Grant]

Sounds like you did what an appraiser is supposed to do. You reconsidered your valuation in the light of additional information provided to you after delivery of your appraisal report.

An appraiser is supposed to consider the new info, not necessarily change it to help their "friends."

Reconisering can include lowering a value lol. Somehow, I bet that never happens.

 

[Mark K]

POINT OF THIS POST is that I'm kinda haunted by JG's perspective a few months ago that to change an OV exposes an appraiser to the liability based upon his or her "admission" that the original OV was incorrect.

You should seriously consider finding a new appraiser for your hero worship.

 

[jay trotta]

Subject of the re-fi assignment is a 106-year-old SFR recently guttted and re-built by owner who is an architect, on a lot in a prestigious subdivision, but fronting a busy public road that defines a neighborhoodd border, adjacent to the vehicular entrance to perhaps the largest recreational venue in Southern Cali. Owner provided an itemized list of renovaion factors "confirmed by the visual observation of the appraiser," who also provided variou comps including a few that were far away but that reflected the externality.

ROV arrives with specific addesses as well as a list of $250,000 of expenses overlooked in the original list, which enhance the subject condition in the SCA, as well as the reproduction expenses in the CA dialogue box.

Comps recommended by the ROV, as well as the ROV conncers about the dissimilarity betweeen the appraiser's opinion of maket value and the insurable value cited in his policy, could easily have been the basis of a well-conceived 15-minute response that debunked the ROV in its entirety.

HOWEVER, after about 5 hours of analysis, the appraiser provided a very thorough explanation of his decision to revise the original OV significanty, by about 14%--presumably enhancing Public Trust without comproming his integrity because of the "complexity" of the improvemements, as well as the previously-unknown renovation factors.

POINT OF THIS POST is that I'm kinda haunted by JG's perspective a few months ago that to change an OV exposes an appraiser to the liability based upon his or her "admission" that the original OV was incorrect. IMO the reponse I submitted was textbook example of the potential ROV functionality. Won't ever happen of course but it seeems that the practitioner could be shielded from potential liability when responding "favorably" to a ROV. That' all I have to say.

Historical dwellings are unique in their own right; an architect would be one who appreciates the history of the property

$250,00 of overlooked expenses (IMO) is significant, and be of some concern

OMV vs Insurable Value..........is that the new target number??

Don't know the original OV, but 14% increase may not be significant considering the "overlooked" $250,000.

IMO-you should never be haunted by (JG) or anyone else's post, perhaps give consideration to their thought process for the market they work within and take the information/thoughts and apply it, along with your thoughts within your own market. Just a thought or two

 

[Tom D]

An appraiser is supposed to consider the new info, not necessarily change it to help their "friends."

I miss all my little savings and loan banks, and mort brokers, who sent me all their work. And never questioned what i did. I miss my friends.

All my friends were eaten by banks becoming bigger and bigger. And do you think they cared about their appraiser friends. Of course they did, they put them on the appraisal AMC plantation to enjoy their lack of lending friendship. So the story goes jgrant.