Water heater not double strapped subject to as is

[headscratch]

I have seen a hundred links on water heaters being double strapped, but i can't find one if it is subject to or as is. This is a conventional refi in california. Thanks.

 

[hastalavista]

Do you have an engagement agreement or assignment-requirements for this client?

I wouldn't make that subject-to unless it was specific to my assignment requirements. Otherwise, I'd just shoot the photo and note it in the report.

If it were a requirement of my client, then when I make it subject-to in the report, I'm going to be sure to state that it is a client-requirement.

 

[headscratch]

No agreement or guideline. That's the way i usually do it as you mentioned, but wasn't sure if that is the protocol. Thanks

 

[VolcanoLvr]

While I appreciate Denis' advice, my belief is this comes down to what is required by CA law. Laws in CA are far different than other parts of the country....due to incidence of well known earthquake zones.

If legislators in CA mandated strapping ALL HWT's as of a certain date in codified law, then you may want to make the report subject-to installation of straps. The lender would then require that to be done before the loan closes; doubtful they would use a holdback in this situation if there was to be cash out. After all, the lender wants to be sure their mortgaged property is protected per the law.

On the other hand (since this is a refi assignment), if there is no requirement for an EXISTING HWT to be strapped until the home is sold/transferred, then you could proceed with the appraisal AS IS. However, you might be wise to photo and mention the existing situation in the report.

The point of strapping is to prevent (as best as possible) the breaking of water lines during an earthquake and flooding the property.

It all comes down to knowing what the CA law requires. I suggest you find out if you don't know.

 

[hastalavista]

While I appreciate Denis' advice, my belief is this comes down to what is required by CA law. Laws in CA are far different than other parts of the country....due to incidence of well known earthquake zones....
It all comes down to knowing what the CA law requires. I suggest you find out if you don't know.

There are a lot of appraisers who will make an appraisal subject-to water heater being strapped, lack of CO2 or smoke detectors, etc., etc.
The strapping the water heater has been the law since 1991 (any new water heater that has been sold since then requires the earthquake strap); so, even in a refi, it is likely that the existing water heater was purchased after the law and, therefore, would require strapping to be up to code.

I don't see this as an appraisal issue. I see it as a lending issue (unless it is a specific part of my engagement agreement). This is similar to security bars on bedroom windows where they block the exterior egress and there is no safety release mechanism (or, it they've been padlocked). I don't make my appraisal subject-to; I photo and describe what exists and let the lender make that decision.

But, that's me! :new_smile-l:

 

[Ca Ar Independent]

Agree with Denis. I take a pic, put it in the report, note it at the top of page 3 (along with my comment about the carbon monoxide detector) and wait for the client to determine their tolerance. Some want it "subject to" others do not. Some will contact the borrower directly it seems and have them send in their own pics, not involving me at all. Yes it is a requirement, and yes, we know the law, but what the lender requires on a refi seems to vary in this instance.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"In 1995............"

http://www.ehow.com/list_6886304_california-water-heater-earthquake-strapping.html


http://www.californiabuildingconsultants.com/docs/WaterHeaterHSCodeSec19210.pdf

California Senate Bill #304 (Approved 7/17/1995) -As of January 1, 1996, required
EXISTING water heaters to be braced, anchored or strapped and also required the Seller of any real property to certify in writing to the purchaser that this bracing, anchoring or strapping has been done, in accordance with applicable local codes.

California Senate Bill #577 (Approved 7/11/1996) - Restated that bracing requirements for water heaters apply to ALL new and replacement water heaters, as well as clarifying that the requirements apply to ALL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL water heaters and required any water heater to be secured in accordanCE with the California Plumbing Code or modifications legally
adopted by the local jurisdiction.

"19210. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there exists a serious threat of fire, explosion, or electrocution to the people of California from water heaters that overturn or experience damage to the plumbing or electrical wiring during an earthquake, and that a large number of structures will suffer damage from water heaters due to the lack of adequate strapping or bracing."
http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/Health and Safety 19211.pdf


A Definitive Health and Safety Issue - valuation "subject to" municipal compliance.

 

[CigarDad]

I call out those items, Water Heater Strapped, Smoke Detector(s), and CO Detector(s).

If one or more of those items are deficient I will state so and report on page 1 of URAR, Improvement section, Are there any physical deficiencies?

I then also state that it does not affect the valuation and complete the appraisal as is.

 

[hastalavista]

Definitive Health and Safety Issue - valuation "subject to" municipal compliance.
[/FONT]

Mike:

In general, is it your practice to make the appraisal subject-to correction/compliance with a building code or permit when you know that an issue is not in compliance or not permitted?

I don't want to get into a specific debate.
In general, it is not my practice to make the appraisal subject-to correction/compliance to issues such as the water heater, security bars, or (something that a lot of appraisers forget here in California) the requirement that a pool be protected from public access by at least two barriers that can be locked. It is my practice to state the issue in my report and let the lender know. And, obviously, there are times when the non-compliance or non-permit issue is a safety or structural integrity issue; then I'll make my report subject-to inspection (or repair); whatever the case may be.

But do you always make your appraisals subject-to when you know there is a code violation (like the water heater). Or, do you make exception for some items if you feel that they are not significant (no need to give me examples, but I wonder if there are any)?

You (IMO) are very black & white in this matter. That's fine; it is your report and your signature.
I'm asking if you are as black & white as I think you are, or if there is some grey areas which you do make an exception.

This is not a "gotcha" question.
I'm just wondering if you make exceptions?
If you do make exceptions, then the only difference between my process and yours is the degree to which an item is not significant (you have a narrower range).
If you don't make exceptions, then the difference between our processes is fundamental.

 

[CANative]

He's gonna say it violates HBU since it's "illegal" not to conform to the water heater "laws."