Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[J Grant]

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

OMG ...are you kidding me? There are two properties, but not two "subjects" - if the assignment is to appraise one identified subject property

Assignment rovide a a market value opinion for ONE subject - the one subject being the improvement sold /conveyed together with adjacent vacant lot ( which is excess land)

An appraiser can provide additional market value opinions the improvement and the lot, but would still need a third MVO to appraise the subject which is purpose of assignment

 

[Lee Lansford]

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

Who cares what the definition of Value in Use is?

If you are offering an opinion of Value in Use, you do understand--do you?--that an opinion of MV is also required by a regulated lender.

As to "scary"?

Scary is an appraiser who would offer one opinion of MV on 2 properties each having a H&BU different from the other and which the market recognizes as such. Now THAT is scary.

Here, I have your theme song for you: youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU

 

[J Grant]

Who cares what the definition of Value in Use is?

If you are offering an opinion of Value in Use, you do understand--do you?--that an opinion of MV is also required by a regulated lender.

As to "scary"?

Scary is an appraiser who would offer one opinion of MV on 2 properties each having a H&BU different from the other and which the market recognizes as such. Now THAT is scary.

Here, I have your theme song for you: youtube.com/watch?v=6E2hYDIFDIU

I'm ahead of you, re read my posts, I already said I'd provide a market value opinion of the vacant lot as part of assignment.

 

[George Hatch]

The lenders are required to use appraisals based on MV. They can ask for additional types of values as an extra but they still need MV.

 

[Carnivore]

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

'your missing the point of those two FAQ's. That could be why your struggling a little bit with it.

 

[glenn walker]

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.

No way we have never had a residential property where a lender would agree to a partial release of a separate encumbered parcel because the original loan was made based on a total value and there is no upside for a lender to reduce their security collateral and if it ever goes into default or the market declines the lender is in a double world of hell with the regulators. A small private independent bank or Credit Union will do it in some cases but only if after their appraiser can verify what effect the release has on the primary properties overall value, and that's where things start getting wacky because in many cases this lowers the value of the subject property by more than what people realized and the sale or development of the adjacent parcel does not make any sense.

When we mortgage a parcel of land where we expect to subdivide it or sell off portions in the future we make sure we have negotiated release clauses into the loan terms and what conditions are required by the lender to move forward. Try calling a non-portfolio lender who has sold the loan to Fannie or Freddie and now they are just servicing it. They are like sorry just pay off the loan in full then sell off your adjacent parcel and then re-apply for a new loan on the remaining property, and once we have the new appraisal we can tell you what we can loan.

 

[Andrei Fin]

2 properties each having a H&BU different from the other

Fannie Mae says that in order to include the second parcel it must have identical zoning to the first, so how is it that the HBU is different?

 

[J Grant]

The lenders are required to use appraisals based on MV. They can ask for additional types of values as an extra but they still need MV.

Who said otherwise? Are folks losing their marbles over this....yes the appraisal purpose is MV of the subject.

Fannie's only directive is the vacant lot ( not the entire subject, the vacant lot ) be treated as value in use . Value in use can also be equal to a market value -see the dictionary of RE paste of that. I would also provide an opinion of market value as an additional value for the vacant lot.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I'm ahead of you, re read my posts, I already said I'd provide a market value opinion of the vacant lot as part of assignment.

Fine.

1st, give 2 opinions of MV, one for the improved parcel and the second for the vacant parcel.

2nd...If you want to label a single opinion of "value" for the two as Value in Use as an opinion in addition to the two MVs, no problem.
Value in Use does not require the appraiser's opinion of H&BU.

3rd, all three opinions of value can correctly be communicated in one report.

 

[J Grant]

No way we have never had a residential property where a lender would agree to a partial release of a separate encumbered parcel because the original loan was made based on a total value and there is no upside for a lender to reduce their security collateral and if it ever goes into default or the market declines the lender is in a double world of hell with the regulators. A small private independent bank or Credit Union will do it in some cases but only if after their appraiser can verify what effect the release has on the primary properties overall value, and that's where things start getting wacky because in many cases this lowers the value of the subject property by more than what people realized and the sale or development of the adjacent parcel does not make any sense.

When we mortgage a parcel of land where we expect to subdivide it or sell off portions in the future we make sure we have negotiated release clauses into the loan terms and what conditions are required by the lender to move forward. Try calling a non-portfolio lender who has sold the loan to Fannie or Freddie and now they are just servicing it. They are like sorry just pay off the loan in full then sell off your adjacent parcel and then re-apply for a new loan on the remaining property, and once we have the new appraisal we can tell you what we can loan.

Take that up with Fannie, not me...whatever your lender rules are their rules... I am not on the mortgage end which pertains to releases of properties with liens or mortgages paid off to get the release. It actually has nothing to do with the appraisal value except that it is to be noted that the properties will convey with one mortgage.