Water in Crawlspace

[George W Dodd]

It's up to the UW to remove/resolve the condition.

 

[Webbed Feet]

I recently completed an purchase appraisal on a 90's stick build home. When I took a look in the crawlspace I noticed that there was some puddles of water on top of the vapor barrier. In talking to the homeowner and looking around the house it became clear that the reason for the water was a built up landscaping bed that allowed water to come back through the crawlspace vents. I alerted the lender and explained in the report that there was water in the crawlspace and why it appeared to be there. A few days later the lender called me back and wants me to remove the explaination about the water in the crawlspace (Big Surprise!) because the problem has been resolved. I am asking for some advice on how to handle this.

Mr. Haak,

Unless you are a home inspector why did you attempt to represent you were capable of identifying the cause of the water in the crawlspace? What if there is more than one cause or you were completely wrong?

There should have been only one course of action for you. No house should have water in the crawlspace, check box 3 should have been used to require the cause to be repaired. The lender should have a contractor's repair work report to use to clear the condition.

Do not change a thing in that appraisal report. Do not take it on yourself to say any repair in that regard has been properly done... not unless you enjoy possibly getting sued by a buyer a year or two from now.

Barry Dayton

 

[Mr Rex]

To add to Barry D's post. I am a licensed Home Inspector also, and the Home Inspection licensure board tells us as Home Inspectors that we don't problem solve, we report the problem and its possible implications and recommend the customer contact a expert in that field. So tread lightly with the diagnosis there doctor, unless you are willing to pay for your recommended fix, the real fix, and the damages caused when your fix didn't work.

 

[jay trotta]

just did a similar problem; as most noted we Do Not make any recomendation about how the water got there, just that it was there.

we were asked to re-inspect about three weeks later to see if the water was still there, it had dried up, or been removed. Did the final inspection page and it was done.

the UW wanted to know all about the water (in the begining) so we recomended that they find a "Licensed" field rep. to perform what ever task it waws they needed done, that went by the way side and it came down to the final inspection.

 

[Webbed Feet]

just did a similar problem; as most noted we Do Not make any recomendation about how the water got there, just that it was there.

we were asked to re-inspect about three weeks later to see if the water was still there, it had dried up, or been removed. Did the final inspection page and it was done.

the UW wanted to know all about the water (in the begining) so we recomended that they find a "Licensed" field rep. to perform what ever task it waws they needed done, that went by the way side and it came down to the final inspection.

Mr. Trotta,

Maybe I am very confused. If you did not "Subject To" anything then how did you complete a 442 that says you certify the conditions or requirements of the appraisal were met when there were not any? ... If you did "Subject To" something, such as repair or inspection, how did you certify these conditions or requirements were met when you do not know of anything that was done at all... only that the water disappeared? What did you do, "Subject To" the water simply disappear?

It sounds to me like you certified a problem to be solved when the problem was never identified by anyone. This or I don't understand your post.

Barry Dayton

 

[Mr Rex]

Barry, I was thinking the same thing, maybe it hadn't rained in the past 3 weeks. Of course, I'm sure someone will argue that well, it just happened to be wet when the original was done, might not have been wet if the original appraisal was done 3 weeks later so what's the difference. Check with your E&O provider for the answer.

 

[Dylan Haak]

Thank you for all of your imput. I want to make it clear that in the appraisal report I explained what the homeowner said was the problem. I agree with nearly all of you that I should have just marked the (3rd box) on the appraisal and let the UW or MB deal with the problem (next time I will). For a conclusion on this story the MB let me know that he was going to deal with it and that I didn't have to worry about it anymore. Hopefully this doesn't mean that I will never hear from him again unless of course he is doing something shady and then I don't want to be a part of it.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

I want to make it clear that in the appraisal report I explained what the homeowner said was the problem.

Dylan

Remember that, if I have not been lead astray in this whole shootin' match, that anything that anybody who has a financial interest in the transaction says must be independently verified. We took that to mean statements about the condition of the interior for a 2055, the price, terms and conditions of a PA, when they house was purchased and for how much, etc. But such a prohibition would apply to everything that a party with a financial interest says about the property.

If we are not going to believe the HO about the sales price of the house or the condition of the interior, then why should we believe him/her in anything else without verification? I've taken to not really asking any specific questions of the HO, thereby stating in the report only what I see, hear, smell, feel, taste, etc. when on site plus what I can learn from trusted reliable sources such as county records and MLS. Two reasons for doing this. First, I don't have to spend the time to verify whatever the HO said. Second, the data contained in the report is from first hand observation or reliable sources only.

 

[xm39hnu]

Ran into an FHA appraisal with 8" of water near the crawl entrance. The way we phrased it was that there was a possibility that the water was coming from a flower bed abutting the foundation wall, but only an expert could tell for sure. Checked the "livability" box, and said water in the CS could contribute to settlement and mold growth, as well as wood rot.

Turned out that the water was caused by a couple of impressive plumbing leaks. Owner fixed it. We sent in an FHA Compliance Inspection Report, because the appraisal had been "as-is," and included the problems. Loan went through.

You can speculate on the cause of a problem, but always be clear that it is speculation, and that you're not an expert. Whether you condition the report on repairs being completed or not is between you and your client. Always get the client's permission before sending in something other than "as-is."

 

[William Rightsell]

It's up to the UW to remove/resolve the condition.

George is dead on. Let the underwriter do thier job and clear it (or not) based on whatever further info they obtained. If you are like me, you arent qualified to make the call as to whether it was fixed correctly. They just want you to say that so they shift the liability to you.

Like George said, make the underwriter clear it. You simply report the facts. Its thier decision what to do next.