Can you value as vacant.if its improved?

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I swear, this forum could go on for 100+ pages debating whether 2+2 really equals four based on various USPAP interpretations!! Mr. Wiley has hit the nail on the head at least twice here. Don't contort a straightforward valuation request into a twisted pretzel. Spell out what you are doing and move on. Disclose, disclose, disclose--explain, explain, explain. Having done that (i.e. disclosing and explaining), anyone questioning the appropriateness of the approach is an anal retentive idiot!!

 

[Carnivore]

Pete,

Maybe you can take a shot at the question I ask earlier.

Imagine yourself in a court room on the stand and it is dead silent! Your the appraiser for the defendent and the plaintiffs attorney ask the following question.

What necessitates the use of a Hypothetical Condition?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Pete,

Maybe you can take a shot at the question I ask earlier.

Imagine yourself in a court room on the stand and it is dead silent! Your the appraiser for the defendent and the plaintiffs attorney ask the following question.

What necessitates the use of a Hypothetical Condition?

My response would be that this particular situation did not necessitate the use of a hypothetical condition--I was valuing the underlying land only. There was a dwelling present but it was not considered as my assignment was to value the underlying land "as if vacant and available for use" as is done in most if not all commercial and some residential assignments.

The opposing attorney would object as to the relevance of the question. Have been in court many, many times and have no problem answering relevant questions. Don't see where this particular question would be relevant as I have explained and disclosed the scope of work for the appraisal.

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Can we get 5+ pages out of this question?

 

[Carnivore]

Pete,

Thanks for using the term "AS-IF". That is the only way this could be done.

Now we getting down to the OP actual problem. I would wager with you at even odds the OP's client would expect an 'AS-IS' report.

But, you did not answer the question!

What necessitates the use of an HC?

I am only using the words of the FAQ.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Pete,

Thanks for using the term "AS-IF". That is the only way this could be done.

Now we getting down to the OP actual problem. I would wager with you at even odds the OP's client would expect an 'AS-IS' report.

But, you did not answer the question!

What necessitates the use of an HC?

I am only using the words of the FAQ.

I thought I'd stay out of this one as much as possible while we have ASB / TAF promoters keep defending that several parts of USPAP versus FAQs are not messed up, that it's only us dimwitted old time appraisers that are confused.... Funny how many of the same people agree about how confusing the Departure Provision was, so it had to be gotten rid of, but none of this is confusnig at all!!!

I'm still waiting for somebody to post to the O.Per. to ask if the "Subject" includes the well, septic, electrical stub in, landscaping, possible all-weather driveway, and any other improvements that are not the MH? If not, then I am certain that "pretending" all of that really isn't there has no effect on the actual use taking place versus the "non-hypothetical" use the land would have without all that stuff... But then maybe "Use" is just whatever it's zoned for? Let me see, model plane airpark, church, hair salon, school, adult foster care... maybe a SFR improvement..........................

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I think is a six of one, half a dozen of another situation. I do not feel that this situation "necessitates" a hypothetical condition. Would I jump on someone that approached it that way--no (nor would I turn them into the State as many hereabouts would do with anyone who does things different than them).

I'm assuming your question is rhetorical as you are well aware of situations where a hypothetical condition is necessary. I just don't think this is one of them.

P.S. all land values developed in reports value the land "as is" (not assuming additional earth moving, etc.) and "as if vacant and available for use."

 

[DWiley]

If you go back to something Danny said earlier you realize how slippery the TAF and former TAF people can be.

Slippery, huh

I actually came to the realization that there was no requirement to use the term before I joined the ASB. That was one of the few debates with Ken Kaiser that went my way.

 

[CANative]

Funny how many of the same people agree about how confusing the Departure Provision was, so it had to be gotten rid of

It wasn't "gotten rid of" because it was confusing. It was retired because it became redundant with the scope of work rule.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I'm still waiting for somebody to post to the O.Per. to ask if the "Subject" includes the well, septic, electrical stub in, landscaping, possible all-weather driveway, and any other improvements that are not the MH? If not, then I am certain that "pretending" all of that really isn't there has no effect on the actual use taking place versus the "non-hypothetical" use the land would have without all that stuff... But then maybe "Use" is just whatever it's zoned for?

Sound like site improvements!! When you complete a cost approach including land value, do you indicate that you are invoking a hypothetical condition? Do you consider the value of the land based on its current utilization and how that may or may not impact the underlying land value?

This discussion is relatively pointless with no clear cut answer. Disclose, explain, and move on.

 

[CANative]

I do not feel that this situation "necessitates" a hypothetical condition.

Then 2-2bix needs to be reworded. Otherwise there is a conflict in reporting the use of the real estate existing and the valuation of real estate not existing.