Entered for comp purposes only.

[The Warrior Monk]

But the recorded sale price was right in line with the arms-length transactions.

Then use the arm's length transactions.

 

[CANative]

Then use the arm's length transactions.

When I was just starting out in appraising and learning how to use MLS I'd stumble on the "perfect" comp only to be crestfallen that it was an active listing.

The property is the "coup de grace" comp in a field of otherwise not so good comps. I know I can't really "use it." I just have this wistful and forlorn feeling of wishing I could and being sad to leave it by the side of the road in my journey to the perfect appraisal.

 

[nstanbru]

Greg, if I had this "perfect" comp I would try to talk to as many parties involved in the sale as possible. Just because the sale is between related parties does not automatically mean that it is not an arms length transaction. If, like you say, the price is within reason based on other sales in the area you may be able to use it if you can get all the info that you feel is needed to determine if it's arms length. If not, I would still note the sale in my report even if I didn't include it in the grid.

 

[Mike Boyd]

But the recorded sale price was right in line with the arms-length transactions.

Should this sale be discussed narratively (versus presented in the sales grid of the fannie form?)

Yes. And, how do you know it was not arm's length?

 

[CANative]

The sales was recorded as being in the same named family trust. There was no market exposure (0 days on market). The agent comments in MLS state "not an arms length sale."

Even if it is an arms length transaction between family members there's enough stuff for someone to hang me if I gridded it.

 

[Michigan CG]

Am I missing something? RSW, do you mean to tell us that the number of posts an appraiser submits on this forum equates to his/her knowledge?.......

I can attest that isn't true. I can't/don't appraise manufactured homes.

 

[Laughing Heir]

Realtors around here use that phrase (Comp Purposes) when they stick these types of sales in. I think what they really want is it to credit towards their performance sheets in the MLS, i.e. Million Dollar Club (yeah, that's still a lot of houses around here).

 

[Doug DeMars]

Ahhh...the journey to the perfect appraisal.

So the RE agent was just showing off? If you must...you could still grid it...but then narrate exactly what the RE agent stated...but you may need to clarify what the agent means by "not an arms length sale"...maybe the RE agent is just covering their behind knowing that the transactions is between family members. Could you argue that the sale was below market value because it was between family members? If so...then you can argue that it's a valid indicator of market value toward the low end of the comparable spectrum. Of course...less weight would be given to this transaction. Or...don't even go there.

IMO, it's better to stick with non-family transactions.

The sales was recorded as being in the same named family trust. There was no market exposure (0 days on market). The agent comments in MLS state "not an arms length sale."

Even if it is an arms length transaction between family members there's enough stuff for someone to hang me if I gridded it.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

Don't grid it, put it in the addendum.

 

[Doug DeMars]

Why is putting info in the addendum somehow more "OK" than putting it on the grid? The grid doesn't have any magical powers that somehow disappear when info is placed in the addendum.

The grid doesn't have to have only sales. We flex it to also include pendings and actives. Even the Subject's prior sale from 9 months ago could be thown on the grid. I've used land only sales on the grid. It's just a grid...nothing magical about it.

Don't grid it, put it in the addendum.