v wrote:
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???
I never claimed that I was lied to.
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.
That jives with what the bank was saying. I guess I wasn't aware that
a appraisal was debatable... I guess that does make sense, it is the
banks money. The property DID appraise for $15,000 over the sale price,
so I thought that was a Good Thing.
... 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?
Because of my lack of knowledge on how banks operate. So as a laymen I
would guess that a loan with a low rate when the rates are high doesn't
pay and would be hard to sell to the secondary market. I assume the
banks are out to make money so killing the deal to replace it with a
new, more profitable one would make sense to me... so that was my stab
in the dark.
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?
When I originally sat down with the lender I was told to lock in at a
rate with zero points I would have to put money down. I put $1000
down. That was the bait. Two weeks later they inform me that they
'forgot' that Freddie Mac charges 1 point on multi-unit homes. That
was switch number 1. And then just recently they inform me that they
'don't like' the appraisal so they can't give me the 30yr fixed - and
then in the same conversation offer me an ARM at TODAYS rates. That
was switch number 2. Now if I want to go to another lender I am
screwed because the rates have gone up so quickly. What was the point
of locking in at rate??
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?
The reason I am upset is that I feel like I was intentionally deceived.
I told what I wanted to hear to make a commitment to the lender, but
when it came time to deliver they didn't. I would have gone to a
different lender had they been upfront with me and told me about the
point.
Being held accountable means that their poor service should be
acknowledged so that potential customers can be made aware. Examples
are the Better Business Bureau for businesses and the Real Estate
Commission for realtors.
AND BTW DID THE DEAL ACTUALLY FALL THROUGH OR ARE THEY JUST HAVING
TROUBLE WITH THE APPRAISAL????
They said they could not provide me with the loan and offered me an ARM
as an alternative. As suggested in another NG I put this in the hands
of my real estate attorney and he has now straightened it out. They
WILL provide me with the loan and they are not requiring a new
appraisal. Which still leaves me wondering what the real problem was.
Thanks for the help - though it felt like an interrogation
-v.
Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.