Home buyer sues when appraiser misses leaky roof

Why suit was thrown out despite court's ruling

Inman News

It's been more than 13 years, but "the leaky roof" case in Washington state is still at the top of the list when it comes to defining and understanding the basic responsibilities of appraisers and inspectors. It's also become the prime ammunition used by defense attorneys in seeking restitution for their clients.

A recent example surfaced a few months ago when a Seattle-area woman made an offer on an older one-story, weekend home in the Cascade Mountains. It was more updated than the typical cabin -- insulated floors, energy-saving windows and a new septic system. She did not have the home inspected by an accredited home inspector. However, when she discovered the roof leaked, she began to mount a case against the appraiser.

Should real estate appraisers really be held accountable if their report does not disclose a leaky roof?

An important case on the issue -- Schaaf v. Highfield -- centers on the sale of a home in Bremerton, Wash., that had a leaky roof. John Schaaf, the buyer, alleged that Paul Olson, an appraiser hired by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, conducted a negligent appraisal of the home that did not reveal the leaky roof to Schaaf.

The trial court held that a VA appraiser owes no duty to a prospective purchaser like Schaaf. The appeals court, however, held that a real estate appraiser owes a "duty of care" to third parties like Schaaf. Olson, though, was not held liable in this case because Schaaf did not rely on Olson's appraisal when he bought the house.

In addition, Schaaf said that he already knew that the home needed a new roof before he bought it. According to court papers, Schaaf stated that he "offered the lower price because the house was 16 years old and thought the house would need a new roof."

Just what does this mean to appraisers? Are they expected to be experts in the field of home repairs? Would not a leaky roof be more in line with the responsibilities of a home inspector?

"I believe we are expected to be accountable in areas of valuation," said Bill King, an independent appraiser. "But what levels of expertise are we expected to have in other areas?"

A typical appraisal on a single-family home costs about $400-$750, more for huge homes with specific amenities like timber, a swimming pool, view or waterfront. An appraisal is an estimate, or opinion, of value the market would bring if the property were offered for sale. The appraisal usually includes comparable sales from other homes in the immediate area.

Appraisals are often confused with a comparative market analysis, or CMA. Real estate agents use CMAs to help home sellers determine a realistic asking price. Experienced agents often come very close to an appraisal price with their CMAs, but an appraiser's report is much more detailed -- and is the only valuation report a bank will consider when deciding whether or not to lend the money.

Times have not been easy for appraisers. Fluctuating interest rates and flat appreciation have meant fewer jobs for "outside fee" appraisers not linked to a lender's in-house staff. And, with more disgruntled homeowners blaming appraisers for lower valuations, some conventional appraisers have looked elsewhere for income.

Attorneys who have studied and cited the Schaaf case state that while the court ruled that duty was owed to the third party, the appraiser was let off the hook because Schaaf did not see the report until more than a year later. It also brings up the issue of detrimental reliance -- you can't rely on something to your detriment when you already know about it.

One of the main issues in Schaaf v. Highfield was the possible exception of liability for an appraiser hired by the VA. Should there be a loophole when the government was involved? And, was duty owed only to the VA or to the veteran/buyer?

According to the court, "when a prospective house purchaser applies to the Veterans Administration for a loan guaranty and the Veterans Administration hires an appraiser to appraise the house solely because of the prospective house purchaser's application, the appraiser owes a duty of care to the prospective house purchaser. Federal statutes and regulations do not preempt the appraiser's common-law duties owed to the purchaser."

But will any appraiser ever be an expert in leaky roofs?

To get even more valuable advice from Tom, visit his Second Home Center.

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.

Add A Comment

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by Pat Hutton on May 14, 2008 - 4:35am.

I can understand, I as a Broker of an office had a lawsuit over the flooding of a house when Katrina rains came through....Two of my agents were involved and the listing agent was the wife of the builder...they allowed pictures on screen of the lady standing in her driveway and the picture looked like 10' of water. I did not know until after the rains anything about the area flooding...so they dismissed my Buyer's Agent but sued me and my other agent and won. I went to the city and the mayor said the house was not in a flood area and water never got in the house just the garage...the people lived there 16 months never made a payment and never did any repairs...so the 165,000 amount to me was so ridiculous and this is the second time they have done this....nothing could be brought up about that and they also got the tripled damages, which the judge awarded and he was a partner with their attorney, in the past. So I feel I was wronged in the whole thing.....That shows how crooked our court systems are!!!

 
Submitted by Pat Hutton on May 14, 2008 - 4:36am.

I can understand, I as a Broker of an office had a lawsuit over the flooding of a house when Katrina rains came through....Two of my agents were involved and the listing agent was the wife of the builder...they allowed pictures on screen of the lady standing in her driveway and the picture looked like 10' of water. I did not know until after the rains anything about the area flooding...so they dismissed my Buyer's Agent but sued me and my other agent and won. I went to the city and the mayor said the house was not in a flood area and water never got in the house just the garage...the people lived there 16 months never made a payment and never did any repairs...so the 165,000 amount to me was so ridiculous and this is the second time they have done this....nothing could be brought up about that and they also got the tripled damages, which the judge awarded and he was a partner with their attorney, in the past. So I feel I was wronged in the whole thing.....That shows how crooked our court systems are!!!

 
Submitted by David Podgursky on May 14, 2008 - 6:43am.

This is a waste of the courts time.

An appraiser should know some information about construction and repair but that is not what they were hired to do. Their terms of service are to establish a value consistent with the market. Their specialty forms etc all tell that fact.

What this case does is drive up the cost of compliance to appraisers...and therefore the cost of the service to consumers.

If the buyer bought with an Agent, the agent might have suggested an inspector. If the buyer said no, then that was the buyer's choice - Caveat Emptor.

If the buyer bought and the Seller did not Disclose the defect, then the Seller is at fault - unless it was not evident to the seller so the seller legitimately did not know.

If the buyer bought without an agent and especially from a For Sale By Owner, this is a great case study for those people who think they're getting a better deal and can work around the system that is in place.

Believe it or not, you do not spend more for a Real Estate Agent, often you spend less and have stress and hassle removed!

The court was wrong in even taking an appeal... but USPAP should have taken up the case on behalf of the Appraiser and made a federal issue of this.

If the guy already knew - the appraiser was likely told and took the functional obsolescence of the roof into account... but to discuss repairs?? No, the appraiser could suggest an increase in value should he replace the roof, but repairing the roof really should make no difference if the roof was already obsolete.

http://www.themortgagegotoguy.com

 
Submitted by on May 14, 2008 - 7:39am.

Buyers are often confused on this issue of appraisers over inspectors, especially, it seems, when dealing with the VA.

I will not represent a buyer that refuses to get their own inspection performed. It is incumbent upon the buyer to perform due diligence for discovery of property issues.

In fact, I had to fire a client who wanted to reply solely on the VA appraiser for discovery. It would be a failure of my agency to allow a buyer to put themselves in such a risky position, at least that is according to my ethics.