The "proper" use of the 1004D

[Webbed Feet]

F.R.

The sketch part wasn't really a question. To each their own. Personally myself, and most other appraisers I stay in contact with, we all sketch the plans in order to verifty the GLA for ourselves. In fact, a great many plans I have been given have no calculated footage on them, or the entity that calcuated the footage doesn't use appraisal standards to do so (measurement from the outside). But that is a different issue.

I'll just leave you with this. How do we, as a trade, consistently use Fannie forms whatsoever when almost everything on page one for new proposed construction is all hypothetical...............but yet the moment we run into cases like your's we do not remain consistent and do otherwise in our reporting of hypotheticals? I will agree, there is no set rule about this, I just don't think that is very consistent to flip flop back and forth like that and certainly could not blame the mortgage side for getting very confused when appraisers do.

I can't imagine anyone at your board saying anything other than "Don't be misleading." That said, I have certainly seen it done both ways by other appraisers, and I have to tell you, the ones that do it your way make it very darn confusing as to what in the report is based on the hypotheticals and what is not based on the hypotheticals. Specifically BECAUSE they proceed to answer one section of the forms as not hypothetical and then other sections as hypothetical while not being clear at all when it was they changed gears! ...

P.S. On the sketch thing, it as you that asked if any of us would sketch the hypothetical. I was pointing out many of us sketch hypotheticals. Typically, if CB2, CB3, or CB4 is used it is very likely my sketch would be based upon the hypothetical. Now, I might have a very complex appraisal and reporting issue where I feel a need to provide a sketch of the reality AND a sketch of the hypothetical for all the intended users. But be assured I would be labeling the beejeebers out of all of it and probably present the non-hypothetical sketch in the first few pages of the report before I informed the reader that everything that followed was based on the hypothetical being used.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Well here is OREA take on the matter. Forget the boxes, check whatever boxes you feel appropriate just make sure you explain everything you are doing and why. ALSO DO NOT FORGET THAT WHEN GIVING "SUBJECT TO" BASED ON A HC AN APPRAISER MUST ALSO STATE THE "AS-IS" VALUE.

So, I guess it is a draw?

 

[The Bob]

Question for Webbed,

When you do an FHA report and there are conditions that need to be "fixed" and you have to mark the "subject to" box, does your page 1 of the URAR reflect the "as is", or actual condition, or the "subject to" (repaired) condition?

 

[Webbed Feet]

F.R.

If you want to call it a draw... sure.. .. Unless your state has some special rules about it, I'd question that OREA staff member about saying all uses of HC's require an "As Is" value. Because if the person said Statement Ten requires it I would immediately ask them to define what a FRT is.

(Edit: Yes Statement 10 is retired. However, the stuff in AO-30 came right out of Statement 10, was expanded, and AO-30 in the common questions has a list of secondary market players that are NOT subject to those appraisal regulations of the federal financial institutions. So where did the staff person get "must" from?

 

[Webbed Feet]

Question for Webbed,

When you do an FHA report and there are conditions that need to be "fixed" and you have to mark the "subject to" box, does your page 1 of the URAR reflect the "as is", or actual condition, or the "subject to" (repaired) condition?

Do you have an example?

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Webbed, didn't statement 10 get retired? and moved into the AO's? Anyway I got my answer from OREA on how to proceed in their eyes. They don't care about the form or the boxes or how they are checked, just that the appraiser explain what he/she did and why. Maybe Oregon's board sees it differently. I would sure like to know if they do. I know they have a reciprocal agreement with CA.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Webbed, didn't statement 10 get retired? and moved into the AO's? Anyway I got my answer from OREA on how to proceed in their eyes. They don't care about the form or the boxes or how they are checked, just that the appraiser explain what he/she did and why. Maybe Oregon's board sees it differently. I would sure like to know if they do. I know they have a reciprocal agreement with CA.

Yes, it did. AO-30. But since only "Statements" carry the weight of USPAP and AO's do not... what is the staff person at the OREO quoting with that "must" parameter regarding the inclusion of an "As Is" value? Take a read of question 4 of the "commonly asked questions under AO-30. Look at the list of secondary players that are NOT subject to the appraisal regulations of the federal financial institutions.

I don't think the OREA and Oregon's board would see the issue differently about "forms." We are discussing two different approaches to reporting is all. As long as both are produced in ways that there is no confusion regarding what is what for readers of a report, either could be completed. I think your way is more confusing than my way. I prefer to create an addendum wherein the report's pages 1, 2, 3 etc state the reality and the HC's being used for complex reports, and then state that everything after those pages is all "based" on the HC's used.. including "page one" of the URAR if I were to use that form. You like to spread reality and HC's across both pages one and two of the URAR, and find that better.

Hopefully, any of either intended users (readers) that you have, or I, will understand us both.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

Good points Webbed, I can only assume that he was speaking in terms of a FRT. Which is confusing beause we were speaking specifically about 2 FNMA forms. But I have the conversation documented and have a clear direction on how I should proceed in the eyes of my board, right or wrong.

 

[Webbed Feet]

That is a good thing, indeed! .