Stove requirement

[Norcal Matt]

Lender say they don't do holdbacks like that. We can't put a stove in because if something happened and it caused an electrical fire or something then we'd be in big legal trouble.

from the lender:

Our underwriter suggested asking the appraiser to make the appraisal “as is” and adjust value accordingly. Our appraisal support department is researching this solution to make sure the request is not an HVCC violation prior to requesting the appraiser to make the change. None of us want to appear as if we are trying to influence the appraiser in any way so this is a delicate request.

 

[sputnam]

Before we accuse the appraiser of idiocy, we should find out what the assignment conditions and guidelines were. It could well be the lender/underwriter requiring the stove.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Contact the Building Department directly and confirm.

Hello, we just got the appraisal report back via our lender and it has been made "subject to the installation of a functioning stove/range"...this is a conventional loan.

The seller...bank owned...will not allow any repairs prior to close and our lender will not ask the appraiser to alter the condition.

How on earth is it that the lack of a $500 stove can scupper this whole deal? Does anybody have experience of this issue at all or any advise on how to resolve it?

From what I have read by searching this site, the appraiser had no way of checking the 220v supply because of the lack of a stove and so was exposed to a potential lawsuit hence the requirement. With this in mind, surely the seller will experience this issue with any other appraisal and it is therefore in their interest to allow us to put in a functioning stove. Obviously this is a bank we are dealing with so common-sense doesn't always come into it!

Thank you for any suggestions or replies that I may recieve.

Matt

....whether or not a kitchen range is required for occupancy. See the examples of which improvements require a BP >>

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/building/permits/when-required.cfm

 

[Norcal Matt]

I talked to CA Office of Real Estate Appraisers and they said that there is no requirement for that condition and that the only way they can think of it being included in the report is if our lender stipulated it. Our lender is saying they didn't, so we're a bit mystified as to why the appraiser put it in there.

We are still waiting to hear from the underwriter as to whether they can waive the condition or not.

 

[mark hurlock]

I talked to CA Office of Real Estate Appraisers and they said that there is no requirement for that condition and that the only way they can think of it being included in the report is if our lender stipulated it. Our lender is saying they didn't, so we're a bit mystified as to why the appraiser put it in there.

We are still waiting to hear from the underwriter as to whether they can waive the condition or not.

My suggestion was that I would research county code compliance, not professional regulations.

Building codes are enforced one time at the time of construction but county codes can be enforced on all dwellings regardless of when they were built. There can be minimum standards that a property owner must maintain for any property to be habitable. What I was suggesting is that your county may require a dwelling to have a functioning stove or it may require “if” it has a stove, it must be functioning but does not require it to have one. It may not require either one. I don't know your county.

I would not wait for someone to solve my problem for me. I would go directly to my county code enforcer and get the code requirement if there is one.

If the appraiser is wrong, I would give him the code reference in writing and demand it be changed. If he refuses, I would demand that he produce the code he is using to base his required repair. I would not agree that this is an HVCC or appraiser independence issue. The lender has a right to request corrections under H.R. 4173

 

[Meandering]

Thank you for this post as it highlights the real problem.

Your lender's underwriter is the idiot.

from the lender:

Our underwriter suggested asking the appraiser to make the appraisal “as is” and adjust value accordingly. Our appraisal support department is researching this solution to make sure the request is not an HVCC violation prior to requesting the appraiser to make the change. None of us want to appear as if we are trying to influence the appraiser in any way so this is a delicate request.

The HVCC was sunset in the Frank/Dodd Financial reform law in 2009 and has no force or effect, so it can not be violated.

It's the lender's underwriter that should be contacting their appraiser, not you.

If I were you, and I'm just special like this.

I would call the lender and demand to speak to their '"CHIEF APPRAISER"

When you get that person on the phone, write down their name, credentials, appraiser license number and state where licensed.

Tell him all what's gone on with your deal,

Accuse his company of trying to pull a bait and switch by getting you to pay origination fees and appraisal fees and by providing an appraisal report that oversteps the local ordinances, GSE requirements, and that their underwriter refused to address the issues with the original appraisal and then cites defunct rules as some kind of smoke screen to hide behind.

Demand the chief appraiser get involved in this, give him the information you have gathered here and make him to get this fixed. Tell him if they do not get that appraisal report fixed in compliance with GSE requirements you are going to contact your lawyer and the national news, along with the states that issued the licenses of the original appraiser, the chief appraiser and the AMC that "chose the most qualified appraiser" to do your work.

But that's just me.


.

 

[KD247]

The challenge here is figuring out the best way to communicate with the lender and appraiser. If I were you, I might propose having an electrician certify that inspection of the 220v outlet showed that it was functioning properly with no deficiencies or health/safety concerns observed.

It's common for properties to be sold without appliances so it would seem reasonable for the appraiser to accept an electrician's report in lieu of installing a stove.

 

[AnonApprsr]

In my professional opinion a property needs a cooking apparatus to be livable and I note as such in an FHA Appraisal.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I talked to CA Office of Real Estate Appraisers and they said that there is no requirement for that condition and that the only way they can think of it being included in the report is if our lender stipulated it. Our lender is saying they didn't, so we're a bit mystified as to why the appraiser put it in there.

We are still waiting to hear from the underwriter as to whether they can waive the condition or not.

Your prior post stated the property is "in Sacramento". The City or the County? (See the Citys' requirement in the link posted above).

 

[Norcal Matt]

I heard from the lender this morning and the appraiser has changed their report to "as is" so the underwriter is free to complete the deal. It looks like a long chain of emails within GMAC so they were able to sort this out internally.

Thanks to all for their replies and advice...I'm relieved that I didn't need to go with some of the more direct oprions presented here in the thread.