Second Parcel

[Dublin ohio]

In addition to a new report date, the reports should not be identical. There was a change made of a parcel added to the appraisal and then later removed - thus a new third report date - that should be disclosed IMO.

Let me walk you through it step by step.
1) OP issues report with one parcel
2) OP issues second report with two parcels.
3) OP issues report with one parcel same as report #1

With exception of report date. What would be the difference between report #1 and report #3

 

[J Grant]

Let me walk you through it step by step.
1) OP issues report with one parcel
2) OP issues second report with two parcels.
3) OP issues report with one parcel same as report #1

With exception of report date. What would be the difference between report #1 and report #3

The difference is the way I would personally do it - your way is to ussie an identical report with a new report date.

I told you several times that I would ALSO put on the third appraisal version that the client on X prior date had the appraiser add a second lot and now wanted the second lot removed because that is what happened.

This whole thing stinks, though, and the client wants free work and to avoidg making a new assignment that should have been done the second version.

 

[Dublin ohio]

The difference is the way I would personally do it - your way is to ussie an identical report with a new report date.

I told you several times that I would ALSO put on the third appraisal version that the client on X prior date had the appraiser add a second lot and now wanted the second lot removed because that is what happened.

This whole thing stinks, though, and the client wants free work and to avoidg making a new assignment that should have been done the second version.

So you would add commentary saying that the third appraisal was different than the second appraisal. Who wouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that #1 and #3 are identical except for the commentary saying #3 was different than #2. Of course there would also have be commentary in #3 referring to the change made to #2 from #1. Which would indicate that #1 and #3 are the same

 

[Gregory A Hicks]

The difference is the way I would personally do it - your way is to ussie an identical report with a new report date.

I told you several times that I would ALSO put on the third appraisal version that the client on X prior date had the appraiser add a second lot and now wanted the second lot removed because that is what happened.

This whole thing stinks, though, and the client wants free work and to avoidg making a new assignment that should have been done the second version.

Agreed the second should have been a new assignment. My thought was the second was something I missed including as it was adjoining and under the same owners. Wanting it to go back to one parcel is either them using the original report without any changes, or a new assignment.

 

[Gregory A Hicks]

Annoying, but you can comment that the verbiage regarding a second parcel no longer applies ( and explain)
or ask them to issue it as a new assignment because regardless of the fact that in FHA the second parcel receives no value, your client keeps changing the physical components of the subject -

Agreed they can use the original copy or I will require they submit a new assignment.

 

[Dublin ohio]

My thought was the second was something I missed including as it was adjoining and under the same owners

You might have missed it because you weren't looking for it. But typically if it isn't on the same deed. You wouldn't think of including it unless the client requests it up front. I had one not too long ago where there were 2 parcels on the same deed. When doing my inspection I confirmed that they owned both. But they also told me they were only using the primary parcel for their loan. Contacted client and relayed the info. Client confirmed it and said only include primary parcel.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I have completed an appraisal for a property the owners purchased one parcel with there home, then a second adjoining parcel at a later time this with a different address due to this having a manufactured home on it at some point. Lenders UW came back with title work stating they wanted both parcels included for this loan, report was revised. However the loan was for FHA, the second parcel being excess land as included but given no consideration. Two weeks later the Lenders UW sent back updated title work on only the original parcel, and wanting the report revised accordingly. Any thoughts?

charge for the extra time

 

[sputnam]

I have completed an appraisal for a property the owners purchased one parcel with there home, then a second adjoining parcel at a later time this with a different address due to this having a manufactured home on it at some point. Lenders UW came back with title work stating they wanted both parcels included for this loan, report was revised. However the loan was for FHA, the second parcel being excess land as included but given no consideration. Two weeks later the Lenders UW sent back updated title work on only the original parcel, and wanting the report revised accordingly. Any thoughts?

Not a problem. Changes the property to be appraised. New assignment. Additional fee.

 

[Tom D]

Take the 1st appraisal, with 1 parcel, do a new signature date. Maybe they want it to override the last request. Are you sure they want you to change anything.
Sometimes i have seen stuff in the portal that the lender put in for their whatever purpose, but not mine.

 

[Zoe]

You could have got into H&B use issue when you combined them. If they are two legally separate parcels, and MV is definition of value, in your H&B use analysis, you would have to determine if they are worth more sold separately or combined and sold togther. That is all H&B use related on MV appraisal.

Is the subject improved to it's H&B use?