ROV that results in a reduction in value

[shrubberyvaluation]

Without saying or implying anything about the situation described in the OP, I will say that just because sales are provided as part of an ROV process that does not mean that those sales should automatically be added to a report. Remember that one of the certification items is an attestation that the sales used are the best available. Throwing dissimilar sales into a grid just because they were provided is contrary to the certification, and it is opening the door for a complaint based on a false certification.

View attachment 109281

No mention of how old they are, so if there is some sale that settled 5 years ago that is located next door and is a model match it seems this would have to be included for this (assuming its comparable with similar market conditions).

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

I've personally never seen an ROV provided in an attempt to lower a value, but I'm sure that could be a motivation, given the circumstances.

I have, more than likely its CU picking up sales in another market area nearby or sales in much inferior condition.

 

[alebrewer]

No mention of how old they are, so if there is some sale that settled 5 years ago that is located next door and is a model match it seems this would have to be included for this (assuming its comparable with similar market conditions).

ahh!. I thought by this: "No, if they are causing you to increase or decrease your opinion you didn't do your research correctly" you were implying that, if a client found a better sale than one that was in the report, the appraiser didn't do their job correctly.

 

[alebrewer]

I have, more than likely its CU picking up sales in another market area nearby or sales in much inferior condition.

Typically an appraiser would see those types of sales in a revision request, not an ROV - or at least that's been my experience.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

I don't disagree, but when elements of comparison are bracketed, it allows for really convenient analysis. When elements of comparison are not bracketed, the appraiser is forced to utilize alternate means for extracting contributory value for elements of comparison. Bracketing isn't a silver bullet - but it makes the analysis much easier (and most of the time, more supportable).

I would just add that the sales grid is supposed to illustrate to the intended users how you came to your conclusion for your opinion of market value.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Typically an appraiser would see those types of sales in a revision request, not an ROV - or at least that's been my experience.

You are probably correct. My mistake for not making that distinction, but the process is normally similar where I'm addressing the sales and why they are not as comparable, if at all.

 

[alebrewer]

I would just add that the sales grid is supposed to illustrate to the intended users how you came to your conclusion for your opinion of market value.

And the free form addenda.

 

[djd09]

i bet they never rov a waiver...right dw?

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

ahh!. I thought by this: "No, if they are causing you to increase or decrease your opinion you didn't do your research correctly" you were implying that, if a client found a better sale than one that was in the report, the appraiser didn't do their job correctly.

No, its more likely that they are just not as comparable. If clients are consistently showing you comparables that are better, that is something that needs to be corrected. Even if its infrequent its good to self reflect to see if you can improve to see why you missed those comparables. We make mistakes, but we should also strive to improve when possible.

I found that the most likely reason I would miss a comparable is that it was put into MLS wrong and I found the most common ways they were put in MLS wrong and made redundances to reduce the risk of missing relevant market data due to this.

 

[alebrewer]

No, its more likely that they are just not as comparable.

You'd be surprised. I think we often silo ourselves into looking for specific features, and sometimes miss the trees for the forest. Not intentional - just that a 'different' set of eyes can sometimes pick up stuff missed by appraisers.

If clients are consistently showing you comparables that are better, that is something that needs to be corrected.

Couldn't agree more.