structural engineer or general contractor FHA?

[Timothy Rock]

FHA loan, home has significant settlement, bulging walls. I called for inspection by a structural engineer. The seller/owner hired a general contractor to repair and inject soil under threatened areas. His license is verified.

In your opinions, is this acceptable even though inspection by structural engineer was required and not completed?

 

[Scott R Marshall]

I am kind of on the fence on this one. The original appraisal called for a structural inspection. The borrowers then go ahead and repair the situation but you are still left without a structural engineers report. Have you gone back to the property to verify what has been done? Have you spoken with the general contractor to get their thoughts regarding the "permanence" of the repair? I also wonder how valid the opinion of maket value on the original report is as I am assuming it was completed CB4, where you made an EA that any inspections would find no necessary repairs. It would appear that there were necessary repairs. I guess I would still require the structural engineers report as that is what the appraisal called for. Seems like a cart in front of the horse scenario. I eagerly await some of my fellow peers responses as this one is kind of hard to wrap my head around.

 

[KYLECODY]

I dont care who repairs it..but I would still require a valid certification from a valid structural engineer stating it is acceptable, not just a contractor.

 

[Mr Rex]

Contractors are not engineers. They are guys with trucks and tools.

 

[Scott R Marshall]

Timothy,


Perhaps I am misreading your post. Did you hold up completing the appraisal pending the structural engineers report or did you complete it CB4 "subject to" a required inspection?

 

[Timothy Rock]

The general contractor states "we can certify that urethane grouts were injected into the soil which formed a rock-like substance along the footing beneath the bedroom wall." I have not seen the property again yet.

 

[Timothy Rock]

completed it "subject to" inspection and any recommended repairs by structural engineer.

 

[Timothy Rock]

My initial thought was this was not good enough and they should still provide an inspection by a structural engineer. Still wanted some of your helpful opinions.

 

[Scott R Marshall]

Okay, not trying to be nitpicky but technically the opinion of value given on the first report is no longer valid as it assumes that there were no issues, which obviously there were. The repairs took place after the effective date of the original report and one can assume that if a structural engineers had gone out there before the repairs were complete, they would have found deficiencies, thus rendering your initial opinion of value potentially invalid.

At this point I think the whole thing is screwed up as I do not think you can perform a second appraisal as this is FHA/HUD although I may be wrong on that. If I am wrong, then that is what I suggest you do with a new effective date and the 3 year prior service disclosure. If you cannot perhaps you can explain the situation and that the repair took place after the effective date of the appraisal report and that there appeared to have been deficiencies with the foundation which have since been repaired. Make mention that the original opinion assumed there were no required repairs and that this assumption turned out to be inaccurate, therefore the initial opinion of market value as of the effective date of the appraisal report may be impacted. I would still require the structural engineers report before I did any of this.

 

[imhere]

FHA loan, home has significant settlement, bulging walls. I called for inspection by a structural engineer. The seller/owner hired a general contractor to repair and inject soil under threatened areas. His license is verified.

In your opinions, is this acceptable even though inspection by structural engineer was required and not completed?

As an appraiser, I never decide if a certification is acceptable. It is the underwriters job.

Okay, not trying to be nitpicky but technically the opinion of value given on the first report is no longer valid as it assumes that there were no issues, which obviously there were. The repairs took place after the effective date of the original report and one can assume that if a structural engineers had gone out there before the repairs were complete, they would have found deficiencies, thus rendering your initial opinion of value potentially invalid.

I agree.