Square footage question

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

I don't think she meant this was aceptable, because it is not. The OP said this is the problem they have come across. Allison is just pointing out that a "casita" is included in the county records here (sometimes), which we know is incorrect. When I see this I just separate the "casita" out of the livable square footage. The problem is when you pull county records and the square footage says 3,500 for example. When you get to the property, it is 2,900 with a 600sf "casita". Now comparables you brought with you in the field are no good, unless you can access your comps in the field (which I do at times).

Perhaps you could save time if you asked more questions when you schedule your inspections. I also make the distinction between GLA and the "casita," though the market does not always.

 

[Webbed Feet]

I do not agree.

To All,

I don't think I agree at all with saying because in some area it seems everyone is including detached structures in the GLA of houses that therefore it is ok for us as appraisers to do the same thing. "The Market" does not alter the definitions we use as a trade in performing our missions. For example, if some fictitious market area consisted 100% of parents selling only to their children, this would NOT alter the definition of Market Value for Fannie Mae and make all of those sales become arms-length just because everyone was doing it that way in that area.

GLA has been pretty well defined by our industry and others. Just because those who sell misrepresent, and just because those who input data into systems poorly designed to reflect a situation do so the easiest way, does not mean the definition changes or "the market" really knows how to define it at all. That is right up there with when lay people ask me what "the" price per square foot is on houses these days........ and I tell them there is no such thing right after some Realtor told them there was.

Webbed.

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

Daffy, I for one, am not implying that the market determines what an industry standard is. My reference to the market centers around what the typical buyer is willing to pay for a home, whether it is a 2,900 sqft residence, plus a 600 sqft "casita," or 3,500 sqft residence. Many times, there does not appear to be a significant (if any) difference in sales prices between the two.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Daffy, I for one, am not implying that the market determines what an industry standard is. My reference to the market centers around what the typical buyer is willing to pay for a home, whether it is a 2,900 sqft residence, plus a 600 sqft "casita," or 3,500 sqft residence. Many times, there does not appear to be a significant (if any) difference in sales prices between the two.

I agree with you Curt. I think that one should report how the market reacts to these "offerings" and that full disclosure of what and how you did what you did is important.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Daffy, I for one, am not implying that the market determines what an industry standard is. My reference to the market centers around what the typical buyer is willing to pay for a home, whether it is a 2,900 sqft residence, plus a 600 sqft "casita," or 3,500 sqft residence. Many times, there does not appear to be a significant (if any) difference in sales prices between the two.

But how would you demonstrate that without a comparison?

Apples to apples. If you are forced to use comps that are configured differently, a separate line for the amenity is in order. If the prices were similar, that would be reflected in your grid.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Daffy, I for one, am not implying that the market determines what an industry standard is. My reference to the market centers around what the typical buyer is willing to pay for a home, whether it is a 2,900 sqft residence, plus a 600 sqft "casita," or 3,500 sqft residence. Many times, there does not appear to be a significant (if any) difference in sales prices between the two.

Mr. V.H.

I did not say you made that implication.. ... But I would not expect to end up agreeing with your observations if I were to study the situation in a specific example.

If we had your 2,900 sqft house with 600 sqft casita selling for $400,000, then a 3,500 sqft home with no casita selling for $400,000, then a 1,900 sqft house with a 1,600 sqft casita selling for $400,000, and finally a 2,100 sqft manufactured home with a 1,400 sqft manufactured "casita" also selling for $400,000 ....... I don't think I'd be lumping all the footage into one number on the GLA row of the grid just so I didn't have to do the research needed in order to separate them and show what was really happening because other people lumped them all together on a local MLS or in county records as one number.

I don't mean you meant the above. But I do mean that adjusting by including a detached building in the GLA against a house where all of that matching footage is really GLA is not considering that the first one has a functional problem when compared to the second one. It's probably not an endorsement by "the market" in that they happened to sell for the same price. It is far more likely the appraisers involved are not acknowledging a coincidence the two properties happened to have similar total overall value, and they are failing to extract out the real reasons for that.

Webbed.

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

But how would you demonstrate that without a comparison?

Apples to apples. If you are forced to use comps that are configured differently, a separate line for the amenity is in order. If the prices were similar, that would be reflected in your grid.

Marcia,

I have said that I make the the distinction between GLA and the sqft of the Casita. Perhaps that is vague. I do seperate them. The casita is placed on a seperate line on the grid and is not included in the GLA of the main house. My point is that, all things otherwise being equal, the market does not necessarily consider the extra space, whether attached or detached, as exceptional one way or the other. Let me be clear, while I do not agree with those that lump the two together, I don't necessarily believe I can call their reports misleading if they clearly cite their (market driven) rational in an addendum.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

they clearly cite their (market driven) rational in an addendum.

the local realtors, the assessors, the borrowers, and in most cases - the mortgage brokers, lenders, AMCs, and their "supervisory (a)ppraisers told em to. after all.......its' only a $$$ number :new_smile-l: and that's alllllll that matters.


p.s. oh yea, forgot one......- it was listed that way - and the CONTRACT PRICE reflects the LP/SF.

 

[Brad Ellis]

If I go into the Improving the Profession section will I find this topic in there, too?

Brad

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

Perhaps "cite" was not the proper word to use in this instance. I apologize if I confused you.