Subject To: Septic & Termite Certs ?

[jay trotta]

HANDBOOK 4000.1 indicates that the mortagegeeee (funny word) needs to obtain proof that a septic system is functional and the property is termite-free. So . . . does each appraisal need to be conditioned "subject to" septic and termite certs regardless of whether evidence of leaks/investion is apparent?

Caveat: Not asking whether others feel that I'm [in]competent. From a regulatory perspective, the appraiser is doing what is necessary to become competent, before there becomes a client who deserves a heads-up.

NOTE: It would appear you have answered your own Question; the liability has been given to the Mortgagee for those items you note. No need for an EA at the time of the report; if the Lender/AMC provides you with "Proof" of either being a problem, they would need to request a reconsideration for the "cost to repair". You would have had no prior knowledge in regards to either, as you are not a licensed field Expert in either field (I would assume).
As for the pages of input, there is a wealth of knowledge provided, read and absorb, don't be so quick to poke the tiger.
Good Luck

 

[Econobot]

I did a test of the "appraiser forum is correct system"... I removed my verbiage about "upon inspection, septic appeared in working order, this is an EA, blah blah blah" and what do you know the client just sent a revision...

"Please have the appraiser state if the septic appears to be in working order or not."

This was not an FHA assignment....
I greatly appreciate the input on how some of you would treat this...I'm guessing the majority of you have yet to encounter this??

 

[J Grant]

I did a test of the "appraiser forum is correct system"... I removed my verbiage about "upon inspection, septic appeared in working order, this is an EA, blah blah blah" and what do you know the client just sent a revision...

"Please have the appraiser state if the septic appears to be in working order or not."

This was not an FHA assignment....
I greatly appreciate the input on how some of you would treat this...I'm guessing the majority of you have yet to encounter this??

It is typically assumed a septic system is working unless an appraiser notes an observed issue with septic or calls for inspection of septic- so how did this client request come about ?

However it came about, now they are asking, so at this point you need to decide per your observation or research was there an issue with septic to declare not working or subject to inspection, or if septic is working with no observable visible adverse conditions noted. i

 

[Mr Rex]

There were no readily visible signs or indications that the subject's septic system was not functioning as designed and intended. Since the undersigned appraiser is not a septic system specialist and the components of the system are below grade and not readily visible, the appraiser can not definitively comment on exact location of the tank and drain field or its current operation and functionality. If the lender/client or other potential end user requires more extensive, exhaustive, and/or definitive information regarding the exact locations or the current condition of the system, then they should require the engagement of the appropriate professional to satisfy their needs. Please refer to the pre-printed Scope of Work on page 4 of the 1004 form as well as #5 under Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions on page 4 of the 1004 form.

 

[Carlos Danger]

You guys don't do the required "head and shoulders" inspection of the septic tank?

 

[Econobot]

It is typically assumed a septic system is working unless an appraiser notes an observed issue with septic or calls for inspection of septic- so how did this client request come about ?

However it came about, now they are asking, so at this point you need to decide per your observation or research was there an issue with septic to declare not working or subject to inspection, or if septic is working with no observable visible adverse conditions noted. i

...Can you advise on what you would say in regards to this revision request? I have already lined out what I respond with in my reports, for this very reason... It became boiler plate for me because of the revision requests... There is a difference in theory and practice in terms of what you put in the report, literally. Please keep in mind that I'm gauging what I do based on what my peers would do in this same situation...

 

[Econobot]

You guys don't do the required "head and shoulders" inspection of the septic tank?

...In that context, I go above and beyond by asking the homeowner (when scheduling inspection) to not flush any solids but leave them in the toilet bowl until I get there. Once I arrive I have the homeowner stick their arm in the septic tank near the inlet and then flush the toilets in the house. I then go outside, have them remove their arm from the tank, and have them stand with a tape measure near the arm for a photo. This test estimates the depth of the scum layer on top and illustrates how the system functions under max flushing situations with heavy solids... I tell them this is standard protocol and required by their lender to establish septic functionality. We report the findings in the report with the photo of the owner's arm showing the tape measure to illustrate the thickness of the scum layer vs the fluid level.

***Be advised, this is all a joke and I've never done, encouraged, or heard of anything of this nature nor would I be a part of a similar activity.***

 

[J Grant]

I did a test of the "appraiser forum is correct system"... I removed my verbiage about "upon inspection, septic appeared in working order, this is an EA, blah blah blah" and what do you know the client just sent a revision...

"Please have the appraiser state if the septic appears to be in working order or not."

This was not an FHA assignment....
I greatly appreciate the input on how some of you would treat this...I'm guessing the majority of you have yet to encounter this??

Was it in working order or not ( as far as you could at inspection observe/know?)

Depending on yes or no, there are two options to respond :

1) " The spetic tank per what was visibly observed at inspection appears to be in working order "

or 2). "The septic tank due to observed ( state condition ) or discovered ( what?) the septic tank does not appear to be in working order, therefore appraisal made subject to inspection .

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

There were no readily visible signs or indications that the subject's septic system was not functioning as designed and intended. Since the undersigned appraiser is not a septic system specialist and the components of the system are below grade and not readily visible, the appraiser can not definitively comment on exact location of the tank and drain field or its current operation and functionality. If the lender/client or other potential end user requires more extensive, exhaustive, and/or definitive information regarding the exact locations or the current condition of the system, then they should require the engagement of the appropriate professional to satisfy their needs. Please refer to the pre-printed Scope of Work on page 4 of the 1004 form as well as #5 under Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions on page 4 of the 1004 form.

---
IMO your response is PERFECT, but I'm wondering if the status consequently warrants CB4 as well.

 

[Econobot]

Was it in working order or not ( as far as you could at inspection observe/know?)

Depending on yes or no, there are two options to respond :

1) " The spetic tank per what was visibly observed at inspection appears to be in working order "

or 2). "The septic tank due to observed ( state condition ) or discovered ( what?) the septic tank does not appear to be in working order, therefore appraisal made subject to inspection .

I'm finding it difficult to deal with you on this forum, you apparently can't comprehend the post where I explained the situation (there is no observable) issue and quoted the revision? I'm not sure what you don't understand but your posts are a waste of time and just like the above remarks you want to delve into appraisal theory and conjecture despite the posts detailing the situation at hand. Please stop replying to my posts if you refuse to read them and then want to go into theory which is not applicable based on the prior post. Not to mention what you've lined out as the two options are so fundamentally basic and elementary it's a waste of time and off topic.