Product: Mortgage

This is a very abridged version, we have a couple of dozen emails related to this complaint. On or about XX/XX/XXXX as part of our application with Quicken loans to refinance a mortgage and HELOC we were provided with an appraisal on our property. The appraisal came back at $ XXXX, which despite reasonable growth in the area and numerous upgrades to the property, was the same price the property was purchased for in XXXX. It was also about $ XXXX less than the property immediately below sold for in XXXX. 

To cut a long story short, in reviewing the appraisal we raised the following issues with Quicken regarding the three comparables used by the appraiser : 1. Despite marking that foreclosures were not a factor in this particular market, comparable # 3 was foreclosed in XXXX and its sale in XX/XX/XXXX was the first time it was sold on the open market since then. The appraiser did not mention this fact. The condo below comparable # 3 but in the same building ( XXXX XXXX ) sold for an extra $ XXXX compared to comparable # 3 in XXXX of XXXX. This huge difference in price needed to be accounted for. It suggests that there was some problem with comparable # 3. Despite this discrepancy, it was treated by the appraiser as being in the same condition as our property. 

2. Comparable # 1 is in the same building as our property, but it is in the east wing and not the west wing. The east and west wings have different floor plans with the west wing being larger. Our condo is 1259 square feet. The publicly available sources ( i.e. XXXX, XXXX ) say that comparable # 1 is only 1000 square feet, or some 20 % smaller. When we challenged this Quicken said that those public sources are unreliable despite those being the same sources they told us to use. However even the room plan as captured ( lets just say for example that someone had bothered to access XXXX to lie about the size of comparable # 1 ) shows they are not the same - because comparable # 1 does not  have separate dining and living rooms. In response Quicken said the appraiser used MLS and county information. 

We went to the county assessors site and it does not have the property size for comparable # 1 recorded. We asked Quicken to provide the MLS information used by the appraiser ( because unless he was being lazy and just assumed that the east and west floor plans were the same, he could have only used MLS ) but they refused saying The appraiser is not required to provide the source of the information that they reviewed for the comparables. We would not be asking them to provide the MLS listing information. So in other words, the only available and provided evidence is that the appraisers assessment of the size of comparable # 1, which is directly relevant to the valuation assigned to our condo, is wrong and yet Quicken both refused to provide evidence to the contrary AND refused to make any changes in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Not only did they not bother to investigate they actually tried to mislead us as to where the information used was obtained from.

The conclusion of the appraiser and supported by Quicken is that two properties in the same condition, in the same building, sold within a few months of each other in very much the same economic climate, but where one is 20 % larger than the other, are worth exactly the same amount of money. 

3. We provided a signed lease evidencing that our property was rented for {$1900.00} per month until the end of XX/XX/XXXX. Comparable number 2 has also been rented out, however it is rented for only {$1300.00} which is less than we were collecting in XXXX. This suggests that there is a significant difference in condition, amenities and/or location ( or all of them ) when compared to our condo. Despite this, the appraiser did not account for this difference in yield and saw it as a fair comparable. This property is also outside of the .44 of a mile as the crow flies criteria that we were told to use by Quicken. And yet, when we queried why the appraiser was not held to the same rules ( especially when there are multiple sales they could have been used ) Quicken told us The appraiser can go out as far as necessary to find properties comparable to yours. 

4. We were told to find other comparables and we provided 7. We were then told to provide just three that fit the following criteria : a ) Included address and date of actual sale ; b ) Were within the size range of XXXX XXXX sq ft. 
c ) Sold no earlier than XX/XX/XXXX and no later than XX/XX/XXXX d ) Within .44 miles as the crow flies We did this, and we met the criteria better than the comparables used by the appraiser, and yet they were all completely and utterly dismissed, and allocated zero consideration, because the appraiser ( whom we have already identified as having credibility issues ) said that the comparables we found were superior in every way to our own because of their condition ( new bathroom, new kitchen, refinished floors ). So even though our condo had a new bathroom professionally installed two years ago, had the floors professionally refinished less than two years ago, and our kitchen professionally renovated with granite countertops and repainted less than two years ago, the appraiser determined instead that properties that were ( variously ) : a ) Significantly smaller ; b ) Sold for 17 % less than another unit in the same building ; c ) Not able to obtain as much rent ; d ) Had much higher HOA fees ; e ) Outside of the geographic catchment area were a better match. The appraiser in defending his appraisal is saying that for sales of equivalent sized condos with only 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom, that a new kitchen and a slightly fresher bathroom and floors will add a pure $ XXXX on top of a $ XXXX sale. Heck, renovate the other four rooms and your 2.1 condo in XXXX will be worth $ XXXX! That is clearly ludicrous and unsupported by what is actually happening in the market. 

Rather than checking the appraiser report, Quicken insisted on pushing back on to us to find information, only to reject that information when we presented it even though it came from the only sources they recommended. The appraisal was never independently reviewed. It was sent back to the same appraiser, who of course was not willing to admit he had done a half-baked job, and was overseen by XXXX XXXX of Quicken who never bothered to get to grips with the material in front of her. XXXX repeatedly dismissed our emails without bothering to understand and respond to the specific points we were making. It was like there was some mindless robot on the other end of the email and no matter how logically and how many times you laid things out, they could only respond with the same answer. For example we first raised the issue with comparable # 3 on XX/XX/XXXX and we raised it again and again in the days that followed, but even so on the XXXX of XXXX she wrote Typically it will be noted in the report on the sales comparison grid if the property is foreclosed. Which property are you referring to?. 

We had already told her this half a dozen times and it was symptomatic of the fact that she was always going to give the same answer, irrespective of the validity of our concerns.

The responses from Quicken suggest that the review of our appraisal was a sham. It served no point and had no other outcome available other, except to be a huge and frustrating and unfair waste of our time. It was a foregone conclusion in that Quicken was never going to change anything no matter what we showed to them because they were only concerned about their rocket mortgage mantra and pressuring the customer into getting their loan written as quickly as possible. The result of the appraisal does not allow us to achieve the financial objective we wish to achieve. We have been charged {$500.00} for this service by Quicken, we have provided them with highly confidential and sensitive information, spent significant time and effort compiling documents and research, have exchanged dozens of emails with them, and we broke of discussions with other lenders, only to be railroaded by Quicken in accepting whatever deal was quickest for them.