vacant to occupied

[Mike Millson]

On the effective date of an appraisal the home was vacant and reported as such. LO requesting to re-inspect and mark as occupied. Assuming the LO is right and the home is now occupied(will go tommorrow to confirm) what course of action should i take? Do new inspection and change effective date or is there a occupation form(i can't find one). Or maybe state the facts in the addendum-some sort of certification of occupancy? Any suggestions?

 

[Tom Barclay]

Mike,
While I'm sure you will get more good advice here, I would treat it as a new assignment. New effective date; would update any new comps, etc. I certainly would not like having to explain to investigators(if it ever comes to that) why I could check the box occupied and unoccupied both on the same day. Just the way I would handle it. What you charge the client depends on how much information has to be updated.

 

[Ultraviolet]

My personal opinion ...

Mike,

This is only what I would do, others may disagree.

I am not the occupancy police. Occupancy has nothing to do with my opinion of market value, and it is outside the scope of my assignment to make definitive declarations about who lives in the property.

This is a lending problem and should be handled by someone on that side of the equation.

Again, this is only my personal opinion.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Mike,

If you do anything It would have to be a new assignment with a new inspection/effective date which means a new comp search. Don't ammend your existing appraisal.

Rae has a good point. If you do accept a new assignment, you do not want to take on the job of "verifying" versus "reporting" the occupancy status. It's a fine line, just be careful. And get payment in advance.

 

[larryhaskell]

Was there furniture in the house on the first inspection and what was the date of the first inspection? I would have a concern that they will attempt to create the appearance that the house is now occupied even if it isn't. My crap detector would be going off on this one. Unless there was some compelling evidence I would be hesitant to change my report but I might make a statement as to what I saw on the second inspection. It sounds to me like they may be wanting to show that the home is owner occupied rather than an investment property. The longer we do this work the more cynical we may become or at least its true in my case.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

An changes to the old report (unless an error needs to be corrected) is a new assignment.

The occupancy as of the original date has not and will not change. Personally I think it should be handed on the lender end. But if the appraiser must handle it:

A new report can be prepared as of a new date with a change of occupancy. Another option is to write a letter stating that the owner has taken occupancy as of a future date. In either case, I would require a signed affidavit by the owner in case any issues arrive in the future.

I don't know the circumstances of your particular case, but this situation occassionally occurs when the owner is trying to obtain favorable financing on a home that isn't the primary residence.

 

[Mike Boyd]

I would do a 442 (or 1004D) and charge accordingly. Leave the rest of the report unchanged.

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

New observation of the subject, new effective date, new report and that new report would include many interior photos. The fee you charge would be your business decision.

 

[Terry Caldwell]

I lean toward the 442 idea. Amending the original report for the lender is a bad idea. Just state in the 442 the reason for the inspection and what you observed (furniture, occupants) and any information provided by the lender. Let the underwriters decide if they want to investigate further. We arent the occupant police.

 

[Wendy]

Personally I would do a 442 or new report.

If they insist on amending the old report, the only thing I would do is add an addendum page. On that page I would note the date, state that the lender requested re-inspection of the property, and state new occupancy. Oh, and in bold text I would add that the occupancy, value, and dov for the original report have not changed.