By: Baggins

Baggins — Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:39:51 +0000

Appraisers should be able to access the UCDP database, in a limited manner, to at least review UCDP ratings and entries for the properties in question. We should be able to know ahead of time if discrepancy exists, and perhaps there should be a specific fill area meant specifically for explaining variance. / The UAD entries being located right on the primary 1004 form is a mistake I think. It would be better if there was an integrated form for UAD descriptions, that would be tied to the primary 1004 form. Appraisers should still be able to freely express statements of quality and specific description within the 1004 adjustment lines. And there should be an integrated and associated new form for UAD entries. Having the appraisers free writing grid lines in the 1004 form taken away by ‘coding description entries’ is both confusing to users and developers of appraisal services alike. Fannie has of yet; not provided a premade appraisal report inclusion to explain coding to readers of appraisal services. Nor has Fannie provided picture based guidance for quality and condition ratings so appraisers can know for certain what the expectations are. UAD feels like a field of landmines, where an appraiser will inevitably make a mistake, even if they are very cautious. The direct approval system with Fannie is imbalanced, if appraisers are constantly more and more restricted in UAD form filling, and also do not have access to the form filling UAD/UCDP results database. So I think requiring an integrated UAD specific additional form would be a much wiser approach to auto tracking, than replacing appraisal fill lines with auto coding lines which often confuse both appraiser and user of appraisal services alike.

Comments on: Appraisal Quality and UCDP Notification

By: Baggins