On 5 Apr 2005 05:40:21 -0700, someone wrote:

....Well, now, 10 days
before settlement, the bank says that Freddie Mac "doesn't like" the
appraisal because the comparison properties are too far away!

OK. Do you ACTUALLY have any proof that this is a LIE???

The
nearest multi-family that sold is 3.5 miles away...

Usually underwriters like the comps to be within a mile. If none are
available the appraiser needs to justify this to the bank (I used to
be a Certified General Appriaser). The bank is worried that the
appraisal might be bogus and ignoring unfavorable comps that are
closer.


... It appears
that the bank is unhappy with the rate they promised and are trying to
kill the deal.

HUH? How did you get from their to here? How many shots were fired
from the grassy knoll? What is the CIA and the Trilateral Commission
hiding at Area 51? WHY do YOU think it "appears" that way? WHY is
the stated reason a LIE?


So, my question is: do I have any legal recourse to force the lender to
honor their promise? In the consumer world there are bait & switch
laws,

What's the bait and switch, it always had to appraise, what's the
promise, the loan always had to appraise, why do you think they did
the appriasal, do you think the "promise" is they will make you a loan
no matter what the appraisal says?


Who can they be held
accountable to?

They are "accountable" to their regulators. Who will not let them
make a loan without an adequate appriasal. I hear people (sometimes
literally, sometimes fiuratively) yell and pound the table that
somebody must be "held accountable". Seems to be a new buzz word.
What exactly does that mean? What would be an example of holding
"them" 'accountable' that would satisfy you?

AND BTW DID THE DEAL ACTUALLY FALL THROUGH OR ARE THEY JUST HAVING
TROUBLE WITH THE APPRAISAL????

-v.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.