sqft in 2055 exterior only

[Randolph Kinney]

Thanks for all your information.

I just called the lawyer yesterday. Sounds like he has not read the whole appraisal report and does not understand this is an exterior only appraisal. I explained to him the scope of work, intended use/users. He asked me to fax him the order request of appraisal from the lender, handout from the listing agent and its MLS listing. I feel he's helping his client to get someone to blame for but he's not knowlegable enough. After talking to him I feel much better. It was a fishy letter. Finally he said they will ask county appraisal district to change sqft. I told him when I was doing this appraisal 3,900 sf is the only number we could use, even the listing agent used it. If the seller knew this is wrong he should have told the listing agent. That appraisal was only for the loan purpose. Since they put a large downpayment, the lender just required a simple appraisal.

Hopefully I can get away from this.

I hope you can get away free too.

Essentially, by supplying those documents, anything that they contain can be used to pursue the liability issues concerning you. It is a case of what you should have known or what was reasonable to know and was there a connection of joint liability.

For example, not saying this is the case but how many times in your career have you found the public record or the Realtor listing to be in error concerning the GLA? If you respond something like it happens ocassionally, then one could argue that you should have known of that being a real possibility in this assignment. How do you do know? By measuring the subject yourself. Why didn't you perform the measurement? It was not part of my scope of work. Who determines your SOW?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"For example, not saying this is the case but how many times in your career have you found the public record or the Realtor listing to be in error concerning the GLA? If you respond something like it happens ocassionally, then one could argue that you should have known of that being a real possibility in this assignment. How do you do know? By measuring the subject yourself. Why didn't you perform the measurement? It was not part of my scope of work. Who determines your SOW?"

EXACTLY CORRECT.

 

[Mike Boyd]

Maybe have your attorney ask that you be allowed onto the property to now measure the property, how do you know you were wrong????

Or, contact your E&O carrier and explain what you did. That is what you pay them for.

 

[Webbed Feet]

I have an order for a 2055 that instructs me to take my best guess if I cannot determine the GLA and room count. In this case there is no MLS data, and we are non-disclosure. It looks like the hhouses on the street run from 2100-2900 SF based on MLS data. Most are around 2400.

Not sure what to do. It is right in the order, but I am getting a weird vibe from this one.

Lobo,

You absolutely, positively, without any doubt, cannot take that assignment with those instructions!

Take at least an hour, sit down with coffee and VERY carefully read all the preprinted language on the 03/2005 2055. .. You CANNOT (read this "should not" if you are in your right mind) accept such a request. You are REQUIRED to have credible information on the subject. Read the damn SOW! "The appraiser must be able to obtain adequate information about the physical charecteristics (Including, but not limited to, condition, room count, gross living area, etc.) of the subject property from the exterior-only inspection and reliable public and/or private sources to perform this appraisal. "

All of this was discussed VERY long ago in 2005 right after this horrible form came out. Given the demand of this preprinted SOW that is not allowed to be modified, the lack of EAs that can't be added, there are not enough assignments most appraisers can comply with this BS forms requirements that Fannie came out with to even make the form worth it's weight in paper. It is exactly why (and sorry O.P., somebody has to say this) appraisers working for AMCs asking for use of this form and the SOW it has on SALES are all mostly completely out of their minds for accepting the assignments. My prediction? .. Any appraiser that thinks they can disclaim their way out of responsibility by using such statements as; "the sources used were believed to be reliable..." in their addendums are going to learn a really harsh lesson if they get hauled into court. I far as I am concerned, the ONLY safe for the appraiser, and responsible way a exterior only SOW can be done demands proper and full EAs so that the work can be completed without being misleading. And this piece of crap form does not have the EAs, and Fannie set us up to get us in trouble with Fannie if we add them. The only form more useless is the 1004d, but at least it can be patched up with lots of additions to it........................the 03/2005 2055 can't!

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Webbed.

P.S. All my comments also go for the 2005 exterior only condo form. Anyone want to know? Since these came out I have never used any of Fannie's 2005 exterior only forms for any assignment ever. Exterior only SOW assignments all demand a full set of applicable, and well thought out, EAs or the appraiser should not be doing that assignment. I will not accept the SOW preprinted on these forms.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

the ONLY safe for the appraiser, and responsible way a exterior only SOW can be done demands proper and full EAs so that the work can be completed without being misleading. And this piece of crap form does not have the EAs,

bullseye.

 

[timd354]

Lobo,

You absolutely, positively, without any doubt, cannot take that assignment with those instructions!

Take at least an hour, sit down with coffee and VERY carefully read all the preprinted language on the 03/2005 2055. .. You CANNOT (read this "should not" if you are in your right mind) accept such a request. You are REQUIRED to have credible information on the subject. Read the damn SOW! "The appraiser must be able to obtain adequate information about the physical charecteristics (Including, but not limited to, condition, room count, gross living area, etc.) of the subject property from the exterior-only inspection and reliable public and/or private sources to perform this appraisal. "

All of this was discussed VERY long ago in 2005 right after this horrible form came out. Given the demand of this preprinted SOW that is not allowed to be modified, the lack of EAs that can't be added, there are not enough assignments most appraisers can comply with this BS forms requirements that Fannie came out with to even make the form worth it's weight in paper. It is exactly why (and sorry O.P., somebody has to say this) appraisers working for AMCs asking for use of this form and the SOW it has on SALES are all mostly completely out of their minds for accepting the assignments. I far as I am concerned, the ONLY safe for the appraiser, and responsible way a exterior only SOW can be done demands proper and full EAs so that the work can be completed without being misleading. And this piece of crap form does not have the EAs, and Fannie set us up to get us in trouble with Fannie if we add them. The only form more useless is the 1004d, but at least it can be patched up with lots of additions to it........................the 03/2005 2055 can't!

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Webbed.

Webbed,

Maybe I am missing something here, but I do not see where Fannie has prevented me from using "proper and full EA's" in my reports, nor do I see where Fannie has done anything which prevents me giving a much fuller explanantion of the SOW than what is stated in the preprinted form.

 

[Lobo Fan]

I read the pre-printed stuff and saw nothing that would prevent me from guessing. The closest thing states that I have access to public records, MLS, etc. I have access to what is available which tells me nothing.

I lose 2055 orders all the time to other appraisers that estimate the GLA when I request a previous appraisal. This is the first time I have been instructed in writing to just take my best guess. My favorite is when I get a previous appraisal and it is a drive by based on a guess.

I went back and asked for more clarification and a previous appraisal. We'll see.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Webbed,

Maybe I am missing something here, but I do not see where Fannie has prevented me from using "proper and full EA's" in my reports, nor do I see where Fannie has done anything which prevents me giving a much fuller explanantion of the SOW than what is stated in the preprinted form.

Timid,

When you are prohibited from modifing, adding to, or deleting from, any of the preprinted assumptions.. explain to me how you are going to add EAs, short of using CB4 on that form to do so, without violating that preprinted prohibition? The only viable stand you can make is "assumption(s)" and "Extraordinary Assumption(s)" are two different things and Fannie did not prohibit adding EAs without the use of a final reconciliation checkbox to bring them in.

You have a published reference source from Fannie saying that?

Webbed.

 

[Webbed Feet]

I read the pre-printed stuff and saw nothing that would prevent me from guessing. <...... snip.....>

Lobo,

What does the definition of a EA say one is in USPAP? If you guess incorrectly, the the act of doing that ultimately affects the outcome of your analysis, that is using a .....................what under USPAP?

Webbed.

 

[Scott Kibler]

E&O might be a good idea...to get and keep clients. Good right up until the time they actually have to spend any resources on you. Then it's time to drop you like a hot potato.

It is also helpful not to have any assets. Good luck collecting $86k from somebody who does not own anything. :icon_idea:

In regards to the 2055 in this case; is assessor data considered to be a credible data source in this market? If so, then I wouldn't sweat it more than is appropriate for any threatening letter. Letters are cheap. Suing people with a weak case and little or no hope of collecting...not so much. Doesn't mean you can't lose your practice, though. No telling what some judge might think.

This business is not without risk. Risk adverse people clinging to their E&O like so much kevlar might do well to find other employment.

This is why we make the big bucks, no?