Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[George Hatch]

I take it that you are not familiar with the FAQs that accompany the USPAP?

Specifically, #176 VALUE IN USE FROM FEDERALLY REGULATED LENDER.

Also, #211 APPRAISING TWO LOTS AS ONE.

As to #211, I've had conversation with the member who was primary--understanding that nothing comes from the ASB lacking many eyes on it--on that little nugget. Give it a read and take it to heart. If you properly digest it, just like the hokey-pokey it will turn you around . Seriously.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I think one of the reasons for some of the pushback you're getting are the constant references to who agrees with you - aka the appeal to authority. I think your explanations of the reasoning - which also motivates other people to agree with you - is sufficient to the task.

Appraisers don't tend to have a whole lot of respect for authority figures. IMO

 

[J Grant]

I take it that you are not familiar with the FAQs that accompany the USPAP?

Specifically, #176 VALUE IN USE FROM FEDERALLY REGULATED LENDER.

Also, #211 APPRAISING TWO LOTS AS ONE.

As to #211, I've had conversation with the member who was primary--understanding that nothing comes from the ASB lacking many eyes on it--on that little nugget. Give it a read and take it to heart. If you properly digest it, just like the hokey-pokey it will turn you around . Seriously.

THIS IS NOT APPRAISING TWO LOTS AS ONE. The fact that you fail to grasp that is scary. (Some on this thread fail to grasp that the fannie example is not two lots combined into one. It is a house and an adjacent lot conveyed together as a property to be valued, but the lots are never combined into one larger parcel. The adjacent separate lot can be severed at any time from the mortgage with a payoff and sold )

Please post the value in use from fed regulated , I can't find it ( don't have time to). In any case, you might want to respond to the post I made on value in use and HBU from dictionary of RE appraisal

 

[Lee Lansford]

You still have not answered, what would be YOUR "proper" way of appraising this? I stated how I would approach it in the other thread.

What the proper way of appraising 2 properties, for market value, for a regulated lender, each having a H&BU separate from the other?

EZ, PZ: 2 opinions of market value, one for each property.

Again, you will benefit by reading and digesting FAQs numbers 176 and 211.

 

[George Hatch]

We are allowed our opinions but imo this is nonsense. What amount of problems arise on res loans/appraisals due to incorrect HBU issues? .. I have seen some garbage res appraisals by cert generals BTW.

Some on this thread fail to grasp that the fannie example is not two lots combined into one. It is a house and an adjacent lot conveyed together as a property to be valued, but the lots are never combined into one larger parcel. The adjacent separate lot can be severed at any time from the mortgage with a payoff and sold.

I don't think that's a persuasive argument for taking the shortcut.

 

[djd09]

This is what they tell me when i question the 'authorities'.

If you do no like the rules, cannot conform, or comply, simply do not do.

 

[J Grant]

I don't think that's a persuasive argument for taking the shortcut.

What is the shortcut ?
I never advised taking a shortcut ( what is it, btw? )

 

[Lee Lansford]

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I think one of the reasons for some of the pushback you're getting are the constant references to who agrees with you - aka the appeal to authority. I think your explanations of the reasoning - which also motivates other people to agree with you - is sufficient to the task.

Appraisers don't tend to have a whole lot of respect for authority figures. IMO

Everyone has an opinion. Opinions need some reference for the basis of the support in order to be credible. Hence, citing authoritative sources--folks or documents--is a good thing.

That some prefer to rely upon their "own truth" (aka, pulling it out of thin air), well, nothing will change their minds. Some just want to do it their way whether it be right or wrong. For example--watch how some folks in this string will react to my sharing of FAQs 176 & 211.

That some folks don't seem to understand and employ basic concepts is troubling.

Have a Merry Christmas!

 

[J Grant]

What the proper way of appraising 2 properties, for market value, for a regulated lender, each having a H&BU separate from the other?

EZ, PZ: 2 opinions of market value, one for each property.

Again, you will benefit by reading and digesting FAQs numbers 176 and 211.

Please plst 176 and 211 so I can see them here and everyone can see them at same time. I am also working on a report and can not bring them up easily to paste.

EZ, PZ: 2 opinions of market value, one for each property.

But that is NOT the assignment! The assignment is provide ONE opinion of market value for the the two properties conveyed under one sale/one lien.

- though I agree it can be a step in the process to derive a seperate market value opinion for each property, we still need a third market value opinion of the two properties together

 

[J Grant]

Everyone has an opinion. Opinions need some reference for the basis of the support in order to be credible. Hence, citing authoritative sources--folks or documents--is a good thing.

That some prefer to rely upon their "own truth" (aka, pulling it out of thin air), well, nothing will change their minds. Some just want to do it their way whether it be right or wrong. For example--watch how some folks in this string will react to my sharing of FAQs 176 & 211.

That some folks don't seem to understand and employ basic concepts is troubling.

Have a Merry Christmas!

You never shared them, lol, please paste them.

I agree there are accepted methodologies and authoritative sources, however they only are meaningful if they can be applied to real world market and assignments. Getting info from the market is not pulling out of thin air.

 

[CANative]

J... with excess land there are two subject properties.