Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Do banks have to accept valuation claims by those requesting loans based on their own property valuations?
Executive Summary
Banks are not required to accept a loan applicant’s own property valuation as the controlling value for mortgage underwriting; federal rules require creditors to obtain or rely on appraisals or compliant valuation methods and permit borrowers to challenge appraisals through formal processes. Regulation and interagency guidance emphasize independent, quality‑controlled valuation processes, not automatic acceptance of borrower‑submitted values, though borrowers may supply information that can trigger reconsideration of value procedures [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why lenders don’t have to accept a homeowner’s valuation — the hard legal baseline
Federal appraisal and valuation rules require creditors to obtain appraisals or use approved valuation methods that meet regulatory standards; they do not impose a duty on the lender to accept a borrower‑provided valuation as determinative. Regulation B (12 CFR 1002.14) and related appraisal rules require a written appraisal or compliant valuation be obtained for first‑lien mortgages and mandate that borrowers receive a copy, but the mandate governs what creditors must provide and what standards appraisals must meet, not a requirement to accept consumer valuations submitted by loan applicants [1]. Interagency guidance associated with real estate lending reiterates that valuation must come from qualified appraisal processes, so banks must rely on independent appraisals or approved automated valuation models rather than borrower claims when setting loan terms [5] [6].
2. Where borrowers have leverage — the reconsideration and challenge pathways
Consumers have procedural avenues to contest appraisals; reconsideration of value (ROV) guidance allows borrowers to submit new evidence or point to appraisal deficiencies, prompting an independent review or a new appraisal when warranted. Interagency guidance dated July 2024 explains that while banks may receive and consider borrower‑submitted information, they are not compelled to accept the borrower’s valuation outright; the focus is on whether the original valuation contains clear errors or omits materially relevant information that would change the value [3] [4]. FHA and other supervisory guidance also describe ROV processes that let borrowers provide comparable sales data, factual corrections about the property, or documentation of omitted features, which can lead to a revised valuation if the lender’s review finds merit [7].
3. The role of automated valuation models and institutional quality controls
When lenders use Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) rather than desk or full appraisals, interagency AVM rules require banks to implement quality‑control frameworks ensuring AVM outputs are reliable and appropriate; these rules do not convert borrower valuations into acceptable substitutes for regulated AVMs or appraisals [2]. The AVM final rule (published July 16, 2024) instructs institutions to validate model performance, monitor ongoing accuracy, and maintain governance — obligations that root valuation decisions in model integrity and supervisory standards rather than applicant assertions [2]. Therefore, even if a borrower’s claimed valuation aligns with an AVM estimate, lenders must ensure their valuation process meets regulatory quality standards before using it for underwriting [2] [5].
4. Practical consequences for borrowers and lenders — disputation versus acceptance
In practice, borrower‑provided valuations function as supporting evidence rather than binding appraisals; lenders will often review submitted comps or documentation and may order a new appraisal or ROV if the material suggests the original valuation is flawed. Fannie Mae guidance on property assessment and valuation underscores institutional procedures for selecting appraisers and disclosing information, reflecting industry practice that maintains appraisal independence while allowing consumer input to inform reviews [6]. Supervisory and consumer guidance from 2022–2024 consistently show regulators expect lenders to have defensible valuation processes and to treat borrower challenges seriously, but they stop short of forcing acceptance of applicant valuations absent an appraisal or validated AVM meeting regulatory criteria [4] [7].
5. Bottom line: what applicants should do and what banks will do
Borrowers seeking to influence a loan valuation should compile documentary evidence — recent comparable sales, error corrections, photos, or permits — and submit those through the lender’s ROV or appeal channels, because that is the procedural route that can lead to a revised estimate [7] [3]. Lenders will evaluate those submissions against regulatory appraisal standards and their AVM governance; they may order a new appraisal or correct obvious errors, but they are under no obligation to accept the borrower’s own valuation as the definitive number for underwriting [1] [2] [5]. This division between consumer input and institutional valuation safeguards both borrower rights to contest and lender responsibilities to maintain independent, compliant valuations.