Subject Meets Mpr Or Mps Statement...

[RSW]

OK, I have been doing FHA appraisals since 1995 and have always used the statement "The subject property currently meets HUD/FHA's MPR or MPS." The lenders I have worked with have always accepted this statement. I now have a lender that wants me to make the statement "the subject property meets HUD/FHA's MPR or MPS per handbook 4150.2 and 4905.1. I have not been able to locate anywhere in the FHA handbooks the requirement for that statement. Can someone show me where it is?

 

[Mr Rex]

Some lenders use that statement with ..."and all related mortgagee letters" added to the end. Some things are not worth arguing about IMHO.

 

[Meandering]

Doesn't matter, they'll just call it an assignment condition.

Some hills are not worth dying on.


.

 

[EddieB]

I don't understand your hesitation. The additional wording only references the appropriate handbook. Sept 14, 2015 it will change to 4000.1

 

[RSW]

What ticks me off is that it was a condition after the appraisal was submitted. There was no reference to it in the letter of engagement. I hate re-visiting an appraisal when it is un-necessary.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Rant. Comply. Receive check.

(FWIW, the lenders I deal with have required the specific reference to the 4150 and 4905 for more than several years (as well as an affirmative statement about "at least" a head and shoulders statement.

 

[RSW]

Rant. Comply. Receive check.

(FWIW, the lenders I deal with have required the specific reference to the 4150 and 4905 for more than several years (as well as an affirmative statement about "at least" a head and shoulders statement.

Not mine. I have been putting the statement about the inspection of the attic and crawlspace in for several years. But, this lender wants a statement that an inspection of the attic was done and it meets HUD/FHA's MPRs per 4150.1 and 4905.1 and the same with the crawlspace. That is just nuts!

 

[CANative]

It's both redundant and semantically incorrect. The property is what it is (or will be once corrections are made) not because of the handbooks and letters. The sentence they want is a non sequitur.

I agree RSW. But what's the point of fighting. You can always express your annoyance by adding "(client required verbiage)" lol

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Not mine. I have been putting the statement about the inspection of the attic and crawlspace in for several years. But, this lender wants a statement that an inspection of the attic was done and it meets HUD/FHA's MPRs per 4150.1 and 4905.1 and the same with the crawlspace. That is just nuts!

If I were a lender, and I looked in on this forum, and noted that there are arguments about what is required of inspections of crawl spaces and attics, I would be inclined to require an affirmative statement about an appraiser's complying with the HUD protocol for inspections.

 

[CANative]

RSW made the necessary statement.