Rels Credit refuses to re-evaluate property appraisal for home loan Bloomington, Minnesota

I am kindly requesting an explanation of a few factors regarding information contained in recent appraisals for 20105 Sparta Rd (file# 55713353) and 25428 Burnetts Rd (file# RELS-FHA-BURNET) that were not addressed in the appraisal reconsideration report for the subject loan.

 

The first factor I am asking an explanation for is the "Opinion of Site Value" that is sited on page 2 of each appraisal report. The appraisal for the Sparta Rd property used $75/sq ft as an estimating value. The appraisal for the Burnetts Rd property used $51/sq ft as an estimating value. This is a $24/sq ft difference which equals $26,880 in value difference on the Burnetts property. The Burnetts home is only two years older than the Sparta Rd home. However, it also has hardwood floors and central air conditioning. The Sparta Rd home does not have hardwood floors or central air conditioning, it only has one window AC unit in the kitchen and none in any other room. I kindly request an evaluation adjustment for the $26,880 value difference for the Burnetts Property. This would bring the appraisal value from $160,000 to $186,880. I will be able to negotiate with the home owner for the $186,880 price.

 

My second factor is just for my informational purposes only. I sited two property comparables in my email regarding the appraisal reconsideration request. One was 13365 Julien St Woodford, Va and the other was 7233 Tumbleweed Place Fredericksburg, VA. I pulled these properties from the appraisal report (file# 55713353) for Sparta Rd. The appraiser's response to the appraisal reconsideration request mentions the 13365 Julien St property but not the 7233 Tumbleweed Place property. If both of these properties were acceptable by Rels underwriting for the Sparta Rd property, why are they not also acceptable as comps for the Burnetts Rd property appraisal?

 

I do not wish to challenge the professional opinion of either appraiser for each property. I would simply like the two homes to be compared relatively equally and the square footage value seems to be the best value comparison.

 

How can an underwriter using subjective judgment be the finite dictator decision maker for someone trying to purchase a home? The underwriter isn't even from the same state. He's from Minnesota and the property is in Virginia. Why do consumers not have any rights to combat these type of tactics?