Is it now Necessary to Confirm the Verifiability of the Confirmation?
It appears that we, as an industry, have finally reached that all time high of stupidity in action. I was recently instructed by an appraisal management company to provide additional MLS sales on a grid to demonstrate market support for my opinion of value because I agreed with the origination appraisal. Had this been something other than a typical residential subdivision where the appraisal used sales from the same development, perhaps I would understand this requirement. Still, one wonders at what point have we crossed into the twilight zone of appraisal review.
I have attested to the confirmation of each section of the appraisal report. I have provided digital copies of all relevant public records, deeds, zoning maps, plat, flood, tax records, not to mention confirmation of MLS for each sale that was provided in the original report. Then a competitive market analysis for competing sales within 12 months of the date of value with a map and full printouts of each competing sale have already been provided. The appraisal was found to have been accurately reported and reasonably concluded. The value was adopted by the reviewer.
Despite all of this, now I am asked to provide additional sales to provide market support to my opinion of value? Really?! Having been a fraud investigator, forensic appraisal reviewer and review appraiser for the last 15 years, I am quite familiar with the reasoning for providing confirmation of each section and detail within the original report. I can even agree with the idea that the competing CMA data is helpful to the analyst at Fannie to determine the relevance of the data provided in the review appraisal. But at what point does the process become burdensome?
As I have stated previously, and oh so many times, sense has become like courtesy it is no longer common.
By John Reynolds aka UncleZev ~ Source Appraisers Speak Out