Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[alebrewer]

Maybe but I honestly can't find it in all these posts and when you directed me yesterday to post 115 ( was it 115?), it did not have the actual FAQ, just a reference to it.

That's it - and I cited the actual FAQ. Please read the post...

 

[George Hatch]

The key phrase is "meaningful and not misleading to intended users". Regardless of how you end up valuing the property, you have to develop an opinion of HBU first, and then you have to report it.

 

[alebrewer]

I think you know that it has nothing to do with whether I have an answer or not, but I am not surprised that you continue to disparage folks for absolutely no reason.

 

[alebrewer]

Would like to rescind my comment about some folks lacking integrity. While I believe part of integrity has to do with treating others as you'd like to be treated, and that I personally wouldn't want my contact information shared without my permission, nonetheless - I don't know Mr. Lansford (other than his snide and condescending comments), and so cannot opine on his integrity. The comment has been revised.

 

[J Grant]

post 115 v

First to the FAQ (at least the one that has more meat) 223 - to use the 20/21 version (since we have only 7 days remaining of the 18/19 cycle). The question is (and I summarize), lender wants a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots, and wants them appraised as though they were one legal lot; intended use is mortgage lending. Question (not paraphrased): "May this assignment be completed treating these two lots as if they were one legal lot with the highest and best use as one legal lot?" Response (not paraphrased): "Yes. However, complying with the lender’s request will require use of a hypothetical condition.

Thanks...as I suspected, this FAQ answers a DIFFERENT QUESTION. The question in this FAQ is" the lender wants a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots, and wants them appraised as though they were one legal lot;"

That is NOT what fannie saying .Neither fannie nor lender is saying they want a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots appraised as though they were one legal lot;

Fannie is saying they want an appraisal of one property ( the property being a house on a site and adjacent lot) with the adjacent lot ( the excess land) for appraisal purpose a value in use. Nowhere does that say to make the appraisal as if they were one legal lot.

 

[alebrewer]

post 115 v

Thanks...as I suspected, this FAQ answers a DIFFERENT QUESTION. The question in this FA is the lender wants a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots, and wants them appraised as though they were one legal lot;

That is NOT what fannie saying ! Fannie /lender is not saying they want a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots, and wants them appraised as though they were one legal lot;

Fannie saying they want an appraisal of one property ( the property being a house on a site and adjacent lot) with the excess land of adjacent lot for appraisal purpose a value in use. Nowhere does that say to make the appraisal as if they were one legal lot.

The point of the FAQ is EXACTLY the example we've been discussing. Your beef is with the ASB and their FAQ's, J. And, if that is the case, you might be well served by petitioning them to change the wording in their FAQ...

 

[J Grant]

The problem all along, as I suspected, is the FAQ answers a different HC appraisal question. Fannie is no HC, it recognizes the excess land as a divisible lot. Merry X mas all

 

[J Grant]

The point of the FAQ is EXACTLY the example we've been discussing. Your beef is with the ASB and their FAQ's, J. And, if that is the case, you might be well served by petitioning them to change the wording in their FAQ...

How can you not see that is not the same example at all?

The FAQ is lender wants a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots, and wants them appraised as though they were one legal lot

The fannie example of discussion- Wants a MV appraisal on one property comprised of two separate legal lots -with excess land lot for appraisal purpose a value in use.

Where is the directive to appraise them as though they were one legal lot? There is none. Therefore they are not the same question..

Not trying to fight it out, but truly, they are not one and the same question. Both questions sound similar as they involve two lots and excess land but please read the fannie directive and the above FAQ question side by side...maybe to morrow take a break...

 

[alebrewer]

How can you not see that is not the same example at all?

The FAQ is lender wants lender wants a MV appraisal on a property with two separate legal lots, and wants them appraised as though they were one legal lot; intended use is mortgage lending.

The fannie example of discussion- Wants a MV appraisal on one property comprised of two separate legal lots - the adjacent vacant lot having for appraisal purpose a value in use.

Since Fannie is NOT telling appraiser to appraise them as if they were one legal lot they are not the same question..

Not trying to fight it out, but truly, they are not one and the same appraisal question. Both questions sound similar as they involve two lots and excess land but please read the fannie directive and the above FAQ question side by side...maybe to morrow take a break...

The FAQ is the ASB's interpretation of what Fannie Mae is requesting. It is you who will not see the it, J. In reality, if the subject property has a contiguous 2nd lot, the ASB's assumption is that the lender will want them appraised 'as if they were one'. Again - your beef is with the ASB. If you think it is more clear to state that the lender wants them appraised 'as if the 2nd lot has additional value in use', then petition them to clarify it. I think the FAQ makes perfect sense, but if you don't - then petition them. Have you ever had a lender ask you to not include the legal description of the 2nd lot? (hopefully) not - they understand that they are two separate parcels encumbered under only one first lien. For the purpose of APPRAISING THEM, though, the value conclusion (in your scenario) reflects the value of BOTH lots as (to use Greg's terminology) 'one economic unit'.

 

[J Grant]

The FAQ is the ASB's interpretation of what Fannie Mae is requesting.

Where does it say the FAQ answers the fannie mae request? In any event, the question in the FAQ does not have the same condition as the fannie request

It is you who will not see the it, J. In reality, if the subject property has a contiguous 2nd lot,

the ASB's assumption is that the lender will want them appraised 'as if they were one'.

the ASB assumption then is NOT what Fannie request says- if ASB assumes the lender wants the 2 parcels appraised as if they were one LOT ( per FAQ post #115, you changed it above if they were one)

Again - your beef is with the ASB. If you think it is more clear to state that the lender wants them appraised 'as if the 2nd lot has additional value in use', then petition them to clarify it. I think the FAQ makes perfect sense, but if you don't - then petition them. Have you ever had a lender ask you to not include the legal description of the 2nd lot? (hopefully) not - they understand that they are two separate parcels encumbered under only one first lien. For the purpose of APPRAISING THEM, though, the value conclusion (in your scenario) reflects the value of BOTH lots as (to use Greg's terminology) 'one economic unit'.

The FAQ makes perfect sense, for the question it answers. I can write to the ASB and post both questions side by side, the question posed in the FAQ, and the fannie request.

Indeed the MV opinion for the one economic unit/property would include a value for each of the two lots, which is not the same as combining the 2 lots into one larger lot and valuing the property as it it sits on one larger lot..