Patty, we're in NW Indiana, home is 14 yrs old, although we have a new roof due to a mini-tornado (microburst) that went through our subdivision a few years back, but no other major improvements.

It's a 2300 sq. ft. 4 bedroom 2-story, very well-maintained with an above-ground pool, 3 car garage and a few other electrical/mechanical perks that my hubby has done. There is a list though that we DIDN'T have to offer, such as, jacuzzi, fence, (there is decking around the pool), security system and sprinkler system.

We passed the Inspection with flying colors, and again, all parties involved know that the only reason the Appraisal came in so low was the comps used, coupled with the current market.

IS the house worth our asking price? YES, no doubt, in fact, the buyers have even stated that they've gone through hundreds of homes for 30K more than ours with much less to offer via their REA, and to find this one by owner for so much less was a good deal for both of us.

I think a lot of sellers are stuck with having to keep their price extremely high due to covering the REA costs, and we didn't have that issue by selling it ourselves.

Do you have cash buyers? Buyers in our area only use the appraisal contingency addendum if they are paying cash or making a very substantial down payment, since a low appraisal will usually result in failure to secure financing, which is a standard contingency in most contracts. Congratulations! Our home (rural, coastal Maryland) sold in one week for full price but we priced it very competitively and listed with a top agent. Good to hear happy news in this sad market(if your a seller, that is).

"berniek, my Appraisal was way below the contract price, and it's not that the seller would refuse to sell, why would they?"
Because they might owe more on the house than the appraisal and don't have the cash to bring to closing? (one scenario)

The seller refuses to sell because of the low appraisal, and the buyer refuses to pay above the appraised value, because his lender will not lend more than the appraisal. (another scenario)
p.s. if the lender does not lend the money to the buyer (finance contingency in the contract), no appraisal contingency can make the buyer perform on the contract.

No Marlee, they weren't cash buyers, in fact, they were pre-approved to carry 2 mortgages; their current one, and whatever they'll borrow on the purchase of our home.

The reason they were pre-approved is because they had another house all lined up before ours and it fell through - didn't pass inspection.

Congrats to you on your sale, they ARE happening out there! :)

Berniek, you're confusing the issues, the buyer's stance and the seller's stance.

If the seller owes more on his mortgage than what the house appraised after 14 YEARS of mortgage, then he hasn't been making but a $1.50 payment per month. LOL

Also, I'm sorry but your "p.s." is incorrect, bad information that you've gotten from somewhere.

If you do not have a Appraisal Contingency in your Contract, the buyers are still obligated to abide by the signed contract in our state, and from what I understand, it varies from State to State.

Our Attorney was smart by intentionally omitting the Contingency with the way the market is now, and with Appraisers low-balling Appraisals.

Our buyer's Attorney agreed with our Attorney in fact, and he advised them that they'd be MUCH better off following through with the purchase than going to Court and losing; which they would have.

berniek, one quick note about your "p.s." -

we had NO finance contingency in the contract, but of course, had we inserted one upon contract draw, then yes, the buyers wouldn't have had the funds for the purchase.

The point is, if you have ANY Contingency clauses in the Contract, those must be met, but we had only Inspection and that's it, and we had no problem at all with Inspection.

Hope this clears it up for ya. :)

Congratulations, enjoy your sale. Sounds like your buyers know they are getting a good house at a good price.

"Our buyer's Attorney agreed with our Attorney in fact, and he advised them that they'd be MUCH better off following through with the purchase than going to Court and losing; which they would have."

As a REALTOR, I would not allow my buyer to expose themselves to such a precarious contract as their attorney did. My fiduciary responsibilities would not permit it.

bernie, many, many Contracts now exclude the Appraisal Contingency clause, it's not at all uncommon.

YEARS ago, yeah, it was standard, perhaps even the Law that it must be included.

Not anymore! :)

"bernie, many, many Contracts now exclude the Appraisal Contingency clause, it's not at all uncommon.
YEARS ago, yeah, it was standard, perhaps even the Law that it must be included.

Not anymore! :)"

You must be an expert! Thank you for your insight.

You're lucky to have gotten such stupid buyers.

Chin up everyone, our home sold in 2 day, BY OWNER, for 15K over the Appraisal.

The Appraisal came in ridiculously low, but then again if you would read the comps they used, you'd see at least a partial reason for it.

This just goes to show that in real estate, you never know what will happen!

I'm finding your posts a little vague on facts. What did the appraisal come in at and what did you list the house for? Did you negotiate or did the buyers pick a number that was good the 1st time?

We didn't have an Appraisal Contingency in our contract, thankfully.

With the way the houses are so lopsidedly appraised now due to the market, I'd advise all of you sellers out there to be sure that this Contingency does NOT appear in your selling contract!

Our buyers had no option but to go through with the purchase, as our Attorney said that 99.5% sure our Contract would be upheld in Court.

Doesn't sound like your buyers had their attorney read the contract they signed, am I wrong? To me from what you've posted, it sounds like they consulted an attorney after signing.

berniek, my Appraisal was way below the contract price, and it's not that the seller would refuse to sell, why would they?

This is what I mean by vague. You're not giving us numbers.

It's the BUYER who would refuse to buy with such a low Appraisal.

BUT, if you don't have the Appraisal Contingency in your contract, the buyers have no other option than to go forward with the purchase.

Well, that, or go to Court, but it would get VERY ugly for the buyers in Court, so they're better off with the purchase.

If the buyers had an attorney read the contract before signing, I doubt they would have signed it. To me, it sounds like you had a loop-hole and are or used that loop-hole to get your house sold. Not sure I could feel good about that. Buying a house shouldn't be nasty where you have to threaten to go to court.

There is a list though that we DIDN'T have to offer, such as, jacuzzi, fence, (there is decking around the pool), security system and sprinkler system.

If it exists, how would you not offer it? Your sentance doesn't make sense to me.

We passed the Inspection with flying colors, and again, all parties involved know that the only reason the Appraisal came in so low was the comps used, coupled with the current market.

IS the house worth our asking price? YES, no doubt, in fact, the buyers have even stated that they've gone through hundreds of homes for 30K more than ours with much less to offer via their REA, and to find this one by owner for so much less was a good deal for both of us.

If it was such a good deal, why is going to court to enforce the contract mentioned?

berniek - The seller refuses to sell because of the low appraisal, and the buyer refuses to pay above the appraised value, because his lender will not lend more than the appraisal. (another scenario)
p.s. if the lender does not lend the money to the buyer (finance contingency in the contract), no appraisal contingency can make the buyer perform on the contract.

lavenderblues - Berniek, you're confusing the issues, the buyer's stance and the seller's stance.

If the seller owes more on his mortgage than what the house appraised after 14 YEARS of mortgage, then he hasn't been making but a $1.50 payment per month. LOL

Also, I'm sorry but your "p.s." is incorrect, bad information that you've gotten from somewhere.

If you do not have a Appraisal Contingency in your Contract, the buyers are still obligated to abide by the signed contract in our state, and from what I understand, it varies from State to State.

I have to agree with berniek. If they can't get financing and don't have the cash or can't secure the extra cash, how on earth do they buy the house? Sure, you can take them to court, but is it really worth it and would you be able to live with yourself? I know I couldn't. It would be cheaper on both parts to try to meet in the middle or void the whole deal amicably.

Our buyer's Attorney agreed with our Attorney in fact, and he advised them that they'd be MUCH better off following through with the purchase than going to Court and losing; which they would have.

So how did they secure the rest of the cash?

berniek - As a REALTOR, I would not allow my buyer to expose themselves to such a precarious contract as their attorney did. My fiduciary responsibilities would not permit it.

Have to agree, and it's why I doubt they had someone read the contract before signing :(

berniek and aurific, I'm not sure why you're so bitter, but if it's because your homes haven't sold, I'll say a little prayer that they do, AND that your spirit becomes more happy & bright! :)

I'm not reading that anyone appears bitter. I've been following this post since you posted it, but didn't have time to respond. Maybe I'm not fully understanding your post or the points you make. As I said, I don't think I'd be happy if my house sale had to come to things you mentioned. Maybe it's ok to do in your state, IDK; but to me, I'm reading that the buyers were tricked due to them not reading.

"We didn't have an Appraisal Contingency in our contract, thankfully. With the way the houses are so lopsidedly appraised now due to the market, I'd advise all of you sellers out there to be sure that this Contingency does NOT appear in your selling contract!"

I didn't know this was an option. I thought most lenders required an appraisal. Why would they want to lend you more than what the house is worth?

I just entered in a contract to sell a multi-family, it specifically states it is not contingent on an appraisal or loan approval. The buyer put in that clause, not the seller.
I know multi-family is different, but I don't see the problem.
I also bought a house where the first appraisal was low, I knew it should be higher, I got another appraisal for loan approval. I did not feel duped by the two appraisals.
Also, do we know if the buyer is putting minimum down. An appraisal can be low but still adequate for the financing qualification.
Also, the OP didn't say the buyer wanted to sue, only that the attorneys
said there was no cause.
It was stated that the buyers are happy with their purchase, why do some feel the buyer was tricked. They have an attorney.
Am I misreading this thread.
The OP is telling others do not be discouraged, even with a FSBO, your house can sell.

It was stated that the buyers are happy with their purchase, why do some feel the buyer was tricked. They have an attorney.

It is the way the posts are worded that I am lost on whether the buyers are happy and whether they consulted an attorney before signing the contract or after signing.

Well, I was going to respond to the posts, but I figured I'd finish reading all of them first.

cmarlin, thanks, because your post accurately answered every single issue/question brought up, start to finish. lol

Good job, young Skywalker! :)

"cmarlin, thanks, because your post accurately answered every single issue/question brought up, start to finish. lol"

The major difference is, one is an investment property, where the price is secondary vs. a SFR property where the importance of ROI is not a factor (unless the OP's property in question was also an investment property).

bernie, there is no difference because there was no Appraisal Contingency in our Contract, and the only Contingency that appeared was Inspection.

Therefore, ability to finance wasn't an issue, nor was the amount for Appraisal an issue.

It's very simple to understand, and I'm not sure why the confusion.

The major difference is, one is an investment property, where the price is secondary vs. a SFR property where the importance of ROI is not a factor (unless the OP's property in question was also an investment property).

Is it really different, the buyer is not concerned, so why is anyone else.
The buyer does have an attorney, I really don't get it.
Why question if they read the contract before signing, how dumb would that be? That would really make me lose sympathy...

berniek, would your fiduciary responsibility disallow your buyer from making such an offer? Would you refer them to another agent, telling them you cannot make such offer? Why would you care if they had legal counsel and said they did not want to make an offer with contingencies?
Actually, even if they didn't have legal counsel, if you suggested such a clause, but they didn't want it, isn't that their right and your duty to deliver?

"Actually, even if they didn't have legal counsel, if you suggested such a clause, but they didn't want it, isn't that their right and your duty to deliver?"
The buyer has the option to ignore my counsel or an attorneys if they so desire. But than again, they hire me for advice and to protect their interests.
Unless the buyer is rolling in cash and money is not important to them, they certainly are in a position to do as they please, which does not mean their lender feels the same way, and in my experience has required an appraisal every time. (and I've not had the pleasure of dealing with buyers where money was not important to them)

I guess I'm as confused as Roselvr. If a property doesn't appraise for its offered price, wouldn't the bank making the loan object and refuse to make the loan?

At least that's what happened to a friend when he bought his condo. He offered $105K. It was appraised for $96K, so that's what he paid, not the $105K because the bank refused the difference. I don't know if he had the appraisal clause in the contract but I remember he did get advice after the low appraisal came in.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it sounds like the buyers got scammed.

jv_md, the bank may refuse the loan, but in your example, if the buyer was making a $30 down payment, the bank would still give an 80% loan with a good rate.
I don't know what the OP's buyer down payment was, but when a large down is used, it is possible to get a loan on an under appraisal. The bank is concerned about their risk.
Or with a higher financing the buyer can make a higher down to meet the lender's highest loan offer.

cmarlin, thanks, because your post accurately answered every single issue/question brought up, start to finish. lol

No, actually it did not. I asked a few questions but don't see them answered. Why won't you post if they had an attorney read it before signing or if they found out after signing when the appraisal came in low?

The way I am reading what you are writing is that you are saying "nah nah I got a few sucker buyers that didn't read before signing"

jy, no one got scammed. :) Scamming implies intent, and you can't hide an Appraisal from the buyer. LOL You're just not used to the fact that non-Contingent contracts are becoming more and more common nowadays, and if you sift through the back-threads of this board, you'll see a lot of discussion stating the same.

"Everything is possible when a buyer has more money than brains." - berniek

Not true in this case for sure, berniek! They're smart enough to realize that the price of this house is fluctuating for more than one reason: bad comps were used, (totally inappropriate, in fact), housing market is in a slump ATM but that will change, it always does, etc.

Roselvr, seeing as how we didn't follow them home upon receipt of the contract, we don't know at what point they contacted their Attorney, but we certainly did advise them that they should take that contract and have THEIR Attorney approve it, and they certainly did see that we had had OUR Attorney draw up the contract, so they knew that Attorneys were involved, as is good business.

lol, I'm also not sure how you're reading "nah nah I got a few sucker buyers that didn't read before signing", when in fact I've stated just the opposite - the buyers are thrilled with their purchase! :)

Geeze, I came here to give this board hope that Real Estate IS moving out there, and from some of you, (not all), all there have been are cutting, bitter remarks!

Lavendarblues- THANK YOU! I for one need Hope and being in the Midwest I am just really completely envious - By Owner too!!

You go girl (or guy)!

You're just not used to the fact that non-Contingent contracts are becoming more and more common nowadays

Actually, now that it is a buyer's market you will probably be seeing more contingencies protecting the buyers. When buyers have dozens of homes to choose from they would be crazy not to do everything possible to protect themselves. When the market favored the sellers many buyers were waiving home inspection and appraisal contingencies in hopes that sellers would choose their offer. With the reversal of the market buyers are asking for the moon.

whenicit (cute name), thanks for the sweet words, and don't despair, your time will come soon, I hope! :)

Potential Buyers, please read this thread & learn.

If the buyers are thrilled with their purchase, why did they consult an attorney over the appraisal issue?

It sounds like they agreed to accept the contract price *upon the advice of their attorney*, not because they were thrilled, but because legal proceedings would cost more than the difference & because their contract might have been ruled binding even though the appraisal clause protecting the buyer was absent, an omission over which the seller sounds...gleeful.

Appraisal by a disinterested professional appraiser is the only way buyers & lenders can ascertain value;
sellers are likely biased toward a higher value than what comparable sales will support.

When a seller tells me that their appraisal was "unfair" or "lowball", I always wonder, if there had been sales that supported the price, why would the seller not have simply provided those comparables to the appraiser or gotten another appraisal?

& if there aren't any sales that support the value, then the appraisal is valid & the market value of the property is what the appraisal says:

Data is data.

& berniek is right about the risk of dropping values, & terriks is right about buyers learning to protect themselves.

Roselvr, seeing as how we didn't follow them home upon receipt of the contract, we don't know at what point they contacted their Attorney, but we certainly did advise them that they should take that contract and have THEIR Attorney approve it, and they certainly did see that we had had OUR Attorney draw up the contract, so they knew that Attorneys were involved, as is good business.

lol, I'm also not sure how you're reading "nah nah I got a few sucker buyers that didn't read before signing", when in fact I've stated just the opposite - the buyers are thrilled with their purchase! :)

I'm glad you sold your house, and you were lucky to get as much as you wanted. I'm not seeing a lot of facts in your post, except that you did not have an appraisal contingency.

As I said, I was following the post for a few days... What got me was your 2nd post where you said...

We didn't have an Appraisal Contingency in our contract, thankfully.

With the way the houses are so lopsidedly appraised now due to the market, I'd advise all of you sellers out there to be sure that this Contingency does NOT appear in your selling contract!

then you added

Our buyers had no option but to go through with the purchase, as our Attorney said that 99.5% sure our Contract would be upheld in Court.

I wondered why you said that. You did not state any facts, and waited until much later to add
IS the house worth our asking price? YES, no doubt, in fact, the buyers have even stated that they've gone through hundreds of homes for 30K more than ours with much less to offer via their REA, and to find this one by owner for so much less was a good deal for both of us.

Had you included this in your 1st post, then added a few more things, perhaps I'd feel differently. I still wonder how they got financed for that $15,000 unless they had cash. From things you posted like:

Our buyer's Attorney agreed with our Attorney in fact, and he advised them that they'd be MUCH better off following through with the purchase than going to Court and losing; which they would have.

so, that's 2 posts where you mention going to court. To me it sounds like they signed 1st, then the appraisal from the lender came in low, they wanted to back out but couldn't due to you wanting to take them to court.

You're just not used to the fact that non-Contingent contracts are becoming more and more common nowadays, and if you sift through the back-threads of this board, you'll see a lot of discussion stating the same.

Actually in the buyer's market in my area (DC metro), contingencies are making a strong comeback. Two or three years ago, sure, people were waiving inspections and probably appraisals but not now.

I pretty much get the same feeling as Roselvr and others. While I think it's great when people sell their houses (especially after so long on the market), I don't think I could feel good if the sale went the way you described. It does sound like the buyers became reluctant to go through after the appraisal report - as Roselvr stated, you mentioned twice the attorney telling buyers not to go to court. In normal house sales, this subject does not even remotely arise.

"Chin up everyone, our home sold in 2 day, BY OWNER, for 15K over the Appraisal.
The Appraisal came in ridiculously low, but then again if you would read the comps they used, you'd see at least a partial reason for it.

This just goes to show that in real estate, you never know what will happen!"

Reading what the OP wrote, my imagination says that either the buyers and lender know the market better than the appraiser does, or the seller threw in a boatload of concessions. No need to be negative either way, but then I guess that's the limit of my imagination.

The OP's posts kinda read like Alberto Gonzales' testimony to Congress.

"Our buyers had no option but to go through with the purchase, as our Attorney said that 99.5% sure our Contract would be upheld in Court."

"The ONLY mention of Court was due to 'discussion'"

"Our buyer's Attorney agreed with our Attorney in fact, and he advised them that they'd be MUCH better off following through with the purchase than going to Court and losing; which they would have."

"There were no threats, period."

"Our Attorney was smart by intentionally omitting the Contingency"

"our buyers are elated"

Something I have avoided to mention, because I really hope and believe that has not happened here, because of the $$$ amounts involved, is the discription of a buyer paying more than the appraised value, which today raises all kinds of red flags, think fraud, kickbacks etc., I read about it every day. See todays article below:

Here is a link that might be useful: Loan Fraud

How can that article be published on August 1, 2007?

"How can that article be published on August 1, 2007?"
It's in the August 2007 REALTOR Magazine, which I got in the mail today and is also available online today.

Here is an additional link to show how prevalent mortgage fraud is today and the concern many agents have about it.
http://activerain.com/blogs/tags/fraud

How can that article be published on August 1, 2007?

It's the August issue of the magazine. That often happens - the issue comes out sometime the month before the issue date. Don't know why.

In thirty years of buying homes, I would never sign a contract to purchase a home without three big contingencies, ability to obtain financing, inspection contingency and an appraisal contingency. In a sellers market, I've heard of people waving these contingencies but we've never had a seller ask for any of those contingencies to be removed from a contract for purchase. In our market, which is a buyer's market, a seller would be lucky to get away without a number of concessions and buyers aren't waving any contingencies, especially appraisal in a market like ours which is falling steadily. I'm sure each area is different, but I do hope that potential buyers that read this thread understand that an appraisal contingency is still a normal contingency in some markets.

appraisal contingency is still a normal contingency in some markets.

I think that you could safely say that an appraisal contingency is normal in MOST markets.

"I have been on this board since Aug.1, 2003, and never read any recommendations that buyers not have contingencies in their contracts as you implied here."

Berniek, once again, you got it wrong.

I never recommended anything for BUYERS.

What I said was, "With the way the houses are so lopsidedly appraised now due to the market, I'd advise all of you sellers out there to be sure that this Contingency does NOT appear in your selling contract!"

Notice the word sellers, not buyers? If youre a seller, youÂre going to treat your contract differently than you would if you were a buyer. If I were a buyer, IÂd look for different things to be in the contract than I would if I were the seller. Get it?

Also, I think some of you who are up-in-arms about the financing are forgetting that the lender only cares about the Appraisal covering the amount of the loan. We havenÂt asked our buyers how much theyÂre putting down, but based on other knowledge that we have of their finances, I can guarantee theyÂre putting down a sizeable amount, and furthermore, they were pre-approved to carry two mortgages, which we knew from the onset.

On a $565,000 house, their lender would only be concerned that the house Appraise for approx. $220,000, because we do know that they put OVER half down, although we don't have exact numbers.

Mfbenson, thanks for applying logic rather than jealousy, and youÂre exactly right, the market is so randomly rated throughout the states now that what it comes down to is knowing the market Âin your own areaÂ, which is basically what I said earlier in one of my posts about the Buyers knowing that this house is well-worth the contract price, as does the lender. The RE market now isnÂt as such that there are blanket rules, so to speak, across the country for how the market fares.

"I have been on this board since Aug.1, 2003, and never read any recommendations that buyers not have contingencies in their contracts as you implied here."
Berniek, once again, you got it wrong.
I never recommended anything for BUYERS."

So, what did you mean by this statement?
" You're just not used to the fact that non-Contingent contracts are becoming more and more common nowadays, and if you sift through the back-threads of this board, you'll see a lot of discussion stating the same."

Please show me the back-threads/links of this board to substantiate your statement!!!

Buyers submit the offers, not sellers. Did your buyers write the offer without an appraisal contingency or , as you said : " Our Attorney was smart by intentionally omitting the contingency with the way the market is now, and with Appraisers low-balling Appraisals. "
That statement implies that your attorney wrote the offer contract and not the buyers representative, is that correct?

" When a seller tells me that their appraisal was "unfair" or "lowball", I always wonder, if there had been sales that supported the price, why would the seller not have simply provided those comparables to the appraiser or gotten another appraisal?

& if there aren't any sales that support the value, then the appraisal is valid & the market value of the property is what the appraisal says:

Data is data. "

Because once a poorly researched appraisal has come in, it is often too late to supply comparables, because the buyer is now spooked. This happened to one of my deals recently. The appraiser decided to diregard the square footage mentioned in the listing/ tax records/ and public offering statement and reduce the square footage fairly considerably. Said it didn't "feel that big to him" (according to the buyer's agent who accompanied the appraiser). He appraised it for $12,000 under the contract price.

Both myself and the buyers agent provided other comps and I suggested splitting the difference with the buyer, but the seller wouldn't budge and the first time home buyer became spooked and backed out.

All because of some idiot appraiser. I get calls most days from appraisers asking my advice. Never used to happen. Appraisers are definitely a lot more cautious than they used to be.

roselvr, you couldn't be more wrong, but that's what happens when you make up your own story, including endings.

Go back and reread this post, making like you have no clue what is going on. Maybe ask a friend to read it to see if they get confused. I am not the only one confused; it is due to the way you originally told the story.

I mentioned that if you would have added more facts to your 1st post -

Chin up everyone, our home sold in 2 day, BY OWNER, for 15K over the Appraisal.

The Appraisal came in ridiculously low, but then again if you would read the comps they used, you'd see at least a partial reason for it. then a blurb more here about the appraisal..

Next I would follow with, the buyers looked at other houses for more and said ours was the best for the price, and that even though the appraisal came in low and they knew we didn't have the contingency, they are still happy because they can pay the difference. yada yada

This just goes to show that in real estate, you never know what will happen!

The ONLY mention of Court was due to 'discussion', CHATTER, between ALL of us, as far as what happens, or COULD happen in instances such as this when the Appraisal comes in lowballed. There was never plans that we were going to Court, because they truly LOVE the house, and it meets the list of criteria that they had lined out during their search.

There were no threats, period.

Had you added this part (about lunch / and discussing) before mentioning court the 2 times you did, it wouldn't have sounded like a threat. As I said, it's the way you told the story.

Now if for whatever reason you NEED to feel that we scammed our buyers, then have at it, I don't really care.

I have learned that there are people like you and a few others on this board who just can't stand it if someone else has a bit of happiness or good fortune.

Hubby and I are thrilled, our buyers are elated.

I said that the way you put things made it sound like. After you elaborated, we now know more of the story.

I'm probably in the same boat as you FWIW. I highly doubt they will find comps similar to our house due to different reasons, size, shape, landscaping, driveway. So I have a personal interest in a story such as yours.

So congrats, and if you haven't closed I hope all goes well.

"The appraiser decided to disregard the square footage mentioned in the listing/ tax records/ and public offering statement and reduce the square footage fairly considerably. Said it didn't "feel that big to him""

Appraisers don't accept anyone's statement of square footage;
appraisers measure.

"Appraisers are definitely a lot more cautious than they used to be."

Being cautious would not involve saying "I reduced the square footage based on what it felt like to me", which could get him sued by a seller.

& although an appraiser will sometimes call a listing agent for more information on an old sale or to ask if the agent is aware of other sales in the area, being cautious involves measuring, photographing, documenting, & being very careful with the math, not calling a Realtor, who is after all a marketing expert & not a professional appraiser, for advice.

On a $565,000 house, their lender would only be concerned that the house Appraise for approx. $220,000, because we do know that they put OVER half down, although we don't have exact numbers.

So, are you saying that you were asking $565,000 and the house appraised for $550,000? I wouldn't call that a "ridiculously low" appraisal. That is over 97% of asking price. As a buyer if I really liked a house a $550,000 appraisal on a $565,000 price wouldn't spook me at all. If the list price was $90,000 and the appraisal came in $15,000 low I might reconsider the deal.

"The appraiser decided to disregard the square footage mentioned in the listing/ tax records/ and public offering statement and reduce the square footage fairly considerably. Said it didn't "feel that big to him""
Appraisers don't accept anyone's statement of square footage;
appraisers measure.

"Appraisers are definitely a lot more cautious than they used to be."

Being cautious would not involve saying "I reduced the square footage based on what it felt like to me", which could get him sued by a seller.

& although an appraiser will sometimes call a listing agent for more information on an old sale or to ask if the agent is aware of other sales in the area, being cautious involves measuring, photographing, documenting, & being very careful with the math, not calling a Realtor, who is after all a marketing expert & not a professional appraiser, for advice."

-------------------------------------------

Sylviatexas:

Appraisers measure? Yes they can measure individual rooms, but most builders here measure their sqft based on the FOOTPRINT of the condo - INCLUDING all closets and interior and often exterior walls. They cannot include terraces and outside space, but they can include the space that the walls take up.

For example if a condo has three rooms on the living floor which measure about 19 x 15 each that's 855 sqft. That does not mean that that floor is 855sqft. Once you add in walls and 'lost' space, the footprint can be more like 1000 sqft.

An appraiser cannot just start measuring the unit and disregard what is in the public offering statement which was drawn up by an architect and shows the legal square footage, so you are incorrect with your assertion.

I am not sure what your point is re appraisers calling realtors for info? You may think it is the wrong thing for appraisers to be relying on the realtors, but it seems they are a lot more than before. We have never had a problem with appraisals in Hoboken before, now three of the agents in my office have had units under appraise in the last two months and all of them were ridiculous and should have appraised out fine.

"I get calls most days from appraisers asking my advice."

Maybe it's a difference in language;

They do call for data, never had one tell me he/she needed some advice.

"three of the agents in my office have had units under appraise in the last two months and all of them were ridiculous and should have appraised out fine."

so where are they getting their comps?

They have to document comparable data to justify their figures.

sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about condos, & I don't know how units in high-rises are measured.

Most condos here are townhouse types; each unit has exterior walls, & the appraiser measures them the same way single family detached homes are measured:

hook the tape on a corner & walk to another corner, & allow a certain depth for 1/2 the wall cavity between attached units.

"So, are you saying that you were asking $565,000 and the house appraised for $550,000? I wouldn't call that a "ridiculously low" appraisal. That is over 97% of asking price. As a buyer if I really liked a house a $550,000 appraisal on a $565,000 price wouldn't spook me at all. If the list price was $90,000 and the appraisal came in $15,000 low I might reconsider the deal."

what she said.

"Appraisers don't accept anyone's statement of square footage; appraisers measure. "

Hogwash. My house is only 94% the size that the appraiser said it was, and he got his "facts" from the guy that sold it to me.

I am wiser, but poorer...

I know of a couple of similar situations that did not end well for the buyers.

My head is spinning.

Here, the appraiser *always* measures.

He/she is responsible for the information that appears on the appraisal.

"Here, the appraiser *always* measures.

He/she is responsible for the information that appears on the appraisal."

Okay... I too am in texas. The research I've done on this issue has led me to believe there is nobody legally liable for the discrepancy and I'll just have to eat the loss unless I choose to misrepresent the house size when I sell.
Are you saying I could seek legal remedy against the appraiser for my diminished house value?