sqft in 2055 exterior only

[Lobo Fan]

Missed it, but it refers to data furnished by other parties.

 

[Mr Rex]

Missed it, but it refers to data furnished by other parties.

So where are you getting your GLA data?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Per the Scope of Work developed by the appraiser and agreed to by the client, the appraiser was not required to make an interior inspection of the subject property nor measure the subject property improvements.

Actually, demanded by the client and agreed to by the appraiser.

 

[DWiley]

Let's see what people think about the following statement...

I think that statement merely repeats things already on the 2055 form.

For any assignment where the scope of work does not include a "full inspection" (whatever that is) of the subject property I add something like:

If the scope of work were expanded to include more detailed inspection and/or measurement of the subject property, that could result in a value conclusion that is higher or lower.

 

[DWiley]

The OP demonstrates the heart of the SOW Rule. What is acceptable in one circumstance may not be acceptable in another. A buyer wishing to "validate" a potential sale price probably needs more analysis than a lender who is using the appraisal report as one piece of their risk assessment puzzle. When we do an exterior only appraisal we specifically state in the report that intended use is for evaluation of the loan, not validation of the sales contract.

Some still cling to the belief that all appraisals should be acceptable for all uses. Those appraisers are free to not accept exterior only appraisal assignments, and many do that. The truth is that all appraisals are based on a limited scope of work. No matter what you do, you could always do more.

The OP also demonstrates why the ASB said that the "may rely" langauge in Cert 23 on the Fannie Mae forms needs clarification. It could lead entities who are not intended users to think that they are. Entities other than the stated intended user can opt to use a report, but that is not the appraiser's intent.

 

[Don Clark]

The OP demonstrates the heart of the SOW Rule. What is acceptable in one circumstance may not be acceptable in another. A buyer wishing to "validate" a potential sale price probably needs more analysis than a lender who is using the appraisal report as one piece of their risk assessment puzzle. When we do an exterior only appraisal we specifically state in the report that intended use is for evaluation of the loan, not validation of the sales contract.

Some still cling to the belief that all appraisals should be acceptable for all uses. Those appraisers are free to not accept exterior only appraisal assignments, and many do that. The truth is that all appraisals are based on a limited scope of work. No matter what you do, you could always do more.

The OP also demonstrates why the ASB said that "may rely" langauge on the Fannie Mae forms needs clarification. It could lead entities who are not intended users to think that they are. Entities other than the stated intended user can opt to use a report, but that is not the appraiser's intent.

Well said Danny. Some obviously believe that one size should fit all. I use the agreed to revision to certification #23 in every appraisal I do using the 2005 series of forms. To wit:

"The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client, the intended use is to evaluate the property that is the subject of this appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction, subject to the stated scope of work, purpose of the appraisal, reporting requirements of this appraisal report form, and definition of market value. No additional intended users are identified by the appraiser."

 

[Lobo Fan]

This goes to my original question. I was instructed by the client to take my best guess. There is no source for the GLA.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Id tell them I get paid BIG money to guess. At least a full appraisal fee and one years E&O premium.
Can you not find this address ANYWHERE in MLS?

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this since I haven't read all the posts, but the borrower, who the attorney is representing, is not your client. States handle the privity issue differently, and in my state of NY, the case being be dismissed on the that point alone.

FWIW, I highly advise against doing appraisals for purchase where inspection is limited to a driveby. That situation is ripe for fraud. Just because it can be done doesn't always mean it should be done.

 

[Don Clark]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this since I haven't read all the posts, but the borrower, who the attorney is representing, is not your client. States handle the privity issue differently, and in my state of NY, the case being be dismissed on the that point alone.

FWIW, I highly advise against doing appraisals for purchase where inspection is limited to a driveby. That situation is ripe for fraud. Just because it can be done doesn't always mean it should be done.

Depends on the scope of work agrred to by the appraiser with communication with the client at the time of the assignment.