[Fannie Mae clarifies certification #23 on the new forms put into effect on November 1st [Appraisal Institute]](http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/publications/ano/default.asp?volume=6%20&numbr=21/22#1903)

“Addressing concerns of appraisers over the ‘intended user’ elements of its latest Uniform Residential Appraisal Report, Fannie Mae has issued a clarifying statement, based in part on input received from the Appraisal Institute. Mark Simpson, Fannie Mae’s director of property standards said, ‘Recognizing that there may be confusion in the appraisal community about the distinction between parties who use’ and parties who rely on appraisal reports,’ Fannie Mae has developed the following additional notice or statement that it will accept when the appraiser believes the Lender/Client is the only Intended User:”

>The Intended User of this appraisal report is the
> Lender/Client. The Intended Use is to evaluate
> the property that is the subject of this
>appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction, subject to the stated Scope of Work, purpose of
> the appraisal, reporting requirements of this appraisal report form, and Definition of Market
>Value. No additional Intended Users are
>identified by the appraiser.

Fannie Mae will not accept other versions of this disclaimer. Their position is that there is nothing wrong with Certification #23 but has admitted there has been a lot of confusion over the matter.

[This has been controversial since the new forms were released [Working RE].](http://www.workingre.com/workingre/fannie-tussle.htm) They are attempting to make the appraiser more accountable for the quality of the report and this is one of the ways FNMA thinks this will get the job done.

Before the fix, the appraiser was definitely facing unfair liability, however, with this fix, I feel more comfortable with its fairness.


  1. David Eaton August 26, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    Downey Saving has refused to take any appraisals that have this clarifying verbage included in any appraisal reports even if they are the final intended user. They claim that this limits their ability as to where this report can be used. The problem with using this verbage is an appraiser can never be sure that the listed Lender/client is the final destination or user. Because of this uncertainty this clarifying verage issued by FNMA is totally useless and continues to leave the appraiser out on the edge and possibly liable to whoever uses it.

  2. STAN SHOWS December 14, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    INTENDED USER. As per USPAP guidelines I can only cite the “Known” intended users. Attaching a blanket statement such as you suggest is not correct and I will not do this. We cannot state unknown lenders. The correct way is to state only the known lenders and then state that there are no other known or additional users. I feel that you are asking us to violate USPAP and FNMA guidelines.

Comments are closed.