Supplemental REO Addendum

[J Grant]

sticking the word REO sale into the market definition ...

 

[residentialguy]

I didn't. I stated the definition as AI states it. I then said that the lender wants the value of the subject as a REO sale, as an REO sale is the purpose and REO fits the definition, so there is no conflict. Besides, you can have a client defined/modified value.

A famous movie star can ask what a house would sell for if he owned it. What is the most probable price of the subject as owned by a famous movie star.

 

[J Grant]

I didn't. I stated the definition as AI states it. I then said that the lender wants the value of the subject as a REO sale, as an REO sale is the purpose and REO fits the definition, so there is no conflict. Besides, you can have a client defined/modified value.

A famous movie star can ask what a house would sell for if he owned it. What is the most probable price of the subject as owned by a famous movie star.

That would be fine, but you'd need to state that as the purpose of the report and disclose it clearly in the value definition: What is the most probable price of the subject as owned by a famous movie star.

If you use the standard MV def in the report, but then go about valuing it as if owned by a famous movie star, it is misleading. Same for appraising the subject as an "REO Sale"....that is my view, at any rate!

 

[residentialguy]

That would be fine, but you'd need to state that as the purpose of the report and disclose it clearly in the value definition: What is the most probable price of the subject as owned by a famous movie star.

If you use the standard MV def in the report, but then go about valuing it as if owned by a famous movie star, it is misleading. Same for appraising the subject as an "REO Sale"....that is my view, at any rate!

I agree That's why I put the value clarification in there for the addendum.

 

[J Grant]

Rex, you are so peculiar! But funny in a peculiar way. (if you ever bother to fact check, all my posts are upheld with USPAP and AF advisories etc.) ..but you are more interested in spewing your venom...your last post should be reported to the moderators, have no idea how to do that but it was a pretty toxic post but that's the kind of guy you are!

 

[J Grant]

Rex's sick post # 45 has been reported to a moderator.

 

[Mr Rex]

Rex, you are so peculiar! But funny in a peculiar way. (if you ever bother to fact check, all my posts are upheld with USPAP and AF advisories etc.) ..but you are more interested in spewing your venom...your last post should be reported to the moderators, have no idea how to do that but it was a pretty toxic post but that's the kind of guy you are!

When have you ever quoted USPAP or AF "advisories"? When? Ever? I have asked before and will continue. Do you have or have you ever had a copy of USPAP? Your posts would indicate not. Report that to the moderators, the teacher, your mother, father and whoever you want to. Yous spout BS based on nothing other than your skewed (and mostly erroneous) view of appraisal practice and USPAP. I only hope that enough folks continue to post an opposing view to your BS that the newbie appraisers and general public visiting the forum recognize your advice and opinions for what they are worth. Less than zero. Ironic in its own way.

 

[J Grant]

I have a copy of USPAP. How about this, I challenge you to post ONE concrete example of something I wrote that is contrary to USPAP.Go back to my posts, highlight something I wrote contrary to USPAP and let's see it. Otherwise, it is just your own sour view, I've seen you post nasty snark to others so it seems a hobby of yours. I've let most of your nasty snips go without comment but this post 45 was over the top.

 

[Mr Rex]

The most recent was the BS today about the REO addenda. USPAP covers that you must define your definition of market value and quote a source, yet you continued to insist that the REO restricted market exposure time was the same as the pre-printed on the 1004 because it had the word market value in the sentence.

Call the moderators, because I'm about to call your intelligence in question, again.woohoo

 

[J Grant]

The most recent was the BS today about the REO addenda. USPAP covers that you must define your definition of market value and quote a source, yet you continued to insist that the REO restricted market exposure time was the same as the pre-printed on the 1004

No I did not insist it was "the same". I ask you to find that sentence in my post. You are summarizing what I wrote wrongly. Go and find exactly what I wrote and quote it if you are going to attack me, I can deal with what I wrote but not your mistaken summary of what you think I wrote.

Call the moderators, because I'm about to call your intelligence in question, again.woohoo

See above, whenever you are ready, quote from a post, exactly as I wrote something , and I'll address it.