I think this is a first for me . . . . but maybe not for you.

I've often done multiple Exteriors on the same Subject; and sometimes later done a few Interiors. That's the typical sequence. It's usually pretty EASY, like visiting an Old Friend, and going over "Old Times".

I've refused to do plenty of Exteriors for insufficient Fees or being too far away, or because my schedule wouldn't allow it. And I do turn down most Interiors where I have to deal with the Occupants . . . . whether they are the Mortgagors or just Tenants. I like the anonymity of Exteriors, but I can usually deal with vacant houses.

I think I recently burned some bridges when I refused to produce an Exterior on a Home where I had already done an Interior . . . . and the Firm involved can't understand my logic. I'd like to know if others have had a similar experience . . . . and how you dealt with it?

From outside appearances, just like for my 1st Exterior BPO on the place, this place looks somewhat normal. It's your basic 5 Bedroom, 4½ Bath with a 3 Car Garage, sitting on a few Acres:

Even from the rear, it looked like a place that had seen happier times . . . . but was still intact (the pool did look a little deflated):

But when I received an Order for an INTERIOR, I was to learn that all that you see on the outside is NOT necessarily what you get on the inside.

Looking at the Dining Room, I noticed (sharp eye that I am) that the Chandelier was missing:


And upon entering the Kitchen . . . . I noticed the complete absence of Cabinets (but you can see where they used to be):

And in the Sunken Living Room, someone had absconded with the Modular Fireplace:

That Master Bedroom isn't so inviting without the Jacuzzi:

Why do people always want to steal your Bath Tub?

Or walk off with your Vanities? (All of the Vanities are missing.)

But still, on the outside, it looked intact (I suppose that one missing Fibreglas Garage Door should have given me a clue ?)

Anyway, how can you be expected to do a new Exterior when you've been made privy to what's been going on inside?

The Firm ordering the BPO said to just ignore what you know about the interior. How do you do that? . . . . I can't. So they're angry with me because I refused to do an Exterior. They have to find someone else who doesn't know so much about it, and can give then a "Fresh" Exterior.

That's true . . . . they do. I told them that I'd be happy to do another Interior . . . . but no dice; their "Client" doesn't want to pay for an Interior! He wants just an Exterior. Well, I now know too much to NOT be influenced by the Interior that I've been in. Is that so difficult to understand?

I had a similar situation when I had done an interior bpo with interior repairs needed and had a followup exterior 2 months later,spoke to qc and noted in the report the additional repairs from the prior interior,in this case perhaps comments like $200k house from the outside,$100k from the inside view....might give the asset manager the right outlook on the house...

I can understand your point of view completely. I would respond the same as you. To do what you are being asked to do would be dishonest and unprofessional. Your mill needs to tell their client what you have told them and get instructions from the client as to how they want this to proceed in my opinion. Nice pics, by the way.

Why should they be angry with you? How hard is it to get someone to do an exterior? They could get some poor soul to do it for $40 I'm sure.

Or you could be a jerk and complete the exterior, but conveniently include the interior pictures? That would probably really annoy them.

This could be some type of a charge back issue. One party bought a loan and is now trying to force the seller to repurchase it or similar. The exterior supports one value, the interior another. The requesting party wants the fat value and thus doesn't want to "know" about the interior condition. Obviously the client would be the selling entity. Situations like this are one of the reasons we see parties trying to raise or lower our BPO values. A party that had an inflated appraisal wants us to mirror that value so they can claim it wasn't inflated. The victimized wants a skinny value to support the charge back. The same sort of thing we run into with some short sale listing agents but on a corporate level. The "Please lie for me" syndrom. I suppose there no telling what goes on in the dark recesses of this industry.

Holy Cow.... we had one like that it ended up selling for 12,000 which broke my heart because I missed it and thats the price of a used car lol

"My value is based on interior being in good condition that is free from any major damage. I completed an interior bpo on xx/xx/2010 and interior was in fair/poor condition. I was asked to complete this bpo based on interior bpo being in good condition without any damage."

You cover your butt and don't burn any bridges. Save a copy for your records just in case the company decides to change the verbiage. I doubt it would come back to bite you in the butt but you never know.

Hello,

I totally agree with BpoBill. Always try to cover yourself and make comments based on your opinion.

This situation arises when the lender thinks that the property should sell for more value and they ignored or misunderstood the first interior BPO.

We don't know why the lender has ordered it. It can be for a short sale or loan modification which the lender does not want to approve. That is the main reason why the high value is asked.

Its not proper business ethics but in this situation when you cant do anything then comment in the BPO based on your opinion.
Once the lender feels that you are correct he might change his opinion on the subject value or he might one more BPO with another agent.

Thanks,

Vermont - I wouldn't do an exterior either. You have knowledge and it is not something you can ignore. The value of the property between an exterior and interior is huge. I wouldn't want my name on the exterior either.

I actually received a drive by last evening that I had done an interior on last Summer. It sold as an REO in 2005 when it was 3 units. Someone bought it and converted it to a single family and upgraded the mechanicals and added a full and half bath, made the 3rd floor into a master suite, etc.

Downside is it's an old row house and has no parking. It was built for 1880's living. We'll add our comments on the interior from last Summer's report just to CYA.

Had the Ownership changed, I may have felt quite differently, thinking that someone may have begun resuscitating the interior, but I checked, and nothing had changed among the Mortgagees' Ownership.

I recall telling them that the repairs may be so expensive that it has to be sold "as is" or they'll have to post an armed guard to protect any future on-site investment. Not knowing exactly who was responsible leaves it up in the air . . . . and so much material was removed over such a long period of time, I cannot but think that the neighbors at least witnessed the demolition . . . . or even participated in it.

In this instance, there was a Divorce involved and Town Officials speculated that one of the disgruntled Estranged Parties may have been responsible for stripping and trashing their former LoveNest . . . . but I'm not paid to be a Private Investigator. The Neighbors know "who" was in there.

I have had this situation in the past also. The typical mill wants you to ignore what you know about the interior, and base your value on the exterior only. But not all ordering companies feel the same way about it. I recently had a conversation with my "regular" reviewer for IREP, who told me if I have previously viewed the interior, it's perfectly okay to include the condition of the interior in a subsequent exterior order.

I had a similar situation a couple years ago...a manufactured home that looked perfectly okay on the outside, but someone had gone through the place with a sledgehammer, or similar, and smashed every wall and every interior door. Inside was a disaster. As the place at the time of my exterior inspection was vacant and unlocked (had previously been listed on MLS, and I had viewed it) I gave myself an unauthorized interior tour, and discovered the damage. At that point, I could no longer describe it as "average" condition. The company was informed of the damage. A couple weeks later it had been secured with a lockbox...but of course, by then, it was too late.

I think I would agree with the other posters above, and CYA.

Then you would think that access would be authorized and the "current condition" should be clarified . . . . and it should then also be "perfectly okay" for them to compensate you for this additional interior review. That avoids the "free" guesswork . . . . and it isn't done for free. They should simply cough up the money and "pay" for another Interior . . . . or pay to get someone else's eyeballs to give it a "fresh" Exterior Valuation, unencumbered with this prior prejudicial knowledge.

They can't have it both ways.

Here's the thing. You can't assume the condition of the interior on the exterior order for better or worse. If you had done a previous interior and it was trashed then six months later they order an exterior you can't assume the interior condition is the same as before. You never know, maybe the construction fairy went in and did all the repairs. Or vice versa.

I am incapable of infecting myself with a case of Selective Amnesia to somehow pretend I don't know what I do know. That would require far more effort than I intend to devote to the task. Get someone else !

You can't Un-Remember Something anymore than you can Un-Ring the Bell !

Well, I don't insist on a subsequent interior order fee, or subsequent interior order for this particular company. I figure it comes out in the wash. They send me quite a few interior orders "on lockbox" that turn out to be occupied properties that are absolutely NOT on lockbox. They turn out to be completed as exterior orders, but because they were ordered as interiors they still pay the higher fee.

It's only dishonest if you don't disclose what you know. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with it. I would disclose such as:



It's the perfect solution and there is nothing unethical or dishonest about it. I've done it on several properties and never had a problem. Of course, I always keep a copy of the report. Plus, I don't burn any bridges over something that is pretty minor.