- Dec 9, 2003
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
I wouldn't call it credibility re the inspection report, I would call it thoroughness. Hard to understand why your client wants an appraisal based on a less through report done in winter when no core samples could be taken due to snow, when the first report had the core samples done . It does sound dodgy, sorry to say , like your client went inspector/season shopping to get a result they wanted ( less repair cost ).The credibility issues has to do more with the season inspected and type of testing. I believe both firms did their best under specific conditions which we all can relate to. The first company inspected the roof late spring and did core samples of decking and suspension rafters. The second did it in the dead of winter with 6 inches of snow and completed no core samples. The repair cost difference between the two reports is significant. The latter report showed half the repair cost of the first. There is nothing dodgy going on. The client and I have no intentions of doing anything dubious. How could we, a significant paper trail exist? Again, there are legitimate reasons they want the second report used. The client has even contacted the developer of the second report so they can read or review the first report for possible reconsideration.
Why an extraordinary assumption again? Whoever said you can't undo seeing the first report is absolutely correct. Thereby, it seems the simplest way to handle it would be to assume it does not exist, when in fact it does exist and say why we are using the second report (simply claiming it is done for analysis purpose).
The MV definition is based on a well informed and well advised buyer acting prudently. So unless most buyers for this property are going to rely on a partial inspection report which skipped essentials,- that t assumes the buyer is an idiot and will never find out about the more serious problems the first report uncovered.
In Real Estate most state laws say a seller must disclose known defects, so how could the seller of this building fail to disclose the first inspection findings ?