community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
its value in use is when the lot is encumbered and conveyed with the house, alone it can have a HBU of either build able now or hold for an interim ...what do you call owner decisions to hold all the vacant land and lots we drive by every day sitting vacant, no for sale sign on them.....
Basing a HBU analysis of real estate on homeowner actions? Because they make up the market?? What do we need an appraiser/appraisal for? Just ask the owner what they want/need/intend to do. I've said it too many times, you are a giant black hole of suck on this forum. You constantly troll threads and often don't even acknowledge what's on the thread. CanNative told you earlier to spend more time reading and less time replying to threads on another thread TODAY. Just stop posting, how about that? You hijack every thread I've read on this forum, the 2nd place top poster is in that spot from replying to your nonsense on this topic. For the last time, you did this to my thread on the same topic over a month ago, just go away, you are not an expert and have been proven WRONG by folks with credentials. That to anybody with their head in open air above their shoulders should be enough to chill out on replying so much. Not to you, it's fuel for your fire of ignorance. Thanks for all of your contributions but if you could please STOP I think the forum would benefit.
That's why everyone I talked with (in person/on phoe) who understands what the hell HBU means laugh and say that Fannie will be correcting that disaster here shortly, just you wait... In the meantime JGrant, "top poster, least merits" is acting like a Fannie lobbyist. I think it's time to develop a survey question on this topic and put it to bed. I definitely am not changing my methods to incorporate JGrants homeowner derived HBU analysis and "value in use" departure from HBU. Is anyone else?
But the homeowner and there buddies claim it's for privacy and maybe to build on one day.....
What do you call a homeowner who lives with a hole in their roof? Do you complete the appraisal and state, the owner is fine with the hole in the roof; no negative impact on marketability or valuation?? Ignoring appraisal methodology in an effort to justify homeowner behavior is owner advocacy and that's a stark contrast to the role of an appraiser as I understand it. That's what you're doing with this "value in use" garbage, I'll ignore the HBU and allow the owner's current use to dictate how I appraise this property.... I don't care what an owner does, it's my job to sort out HBU and then establish a value based on that. I don't value based on what a owner does/did/or wants to do. The HBU class is calling you...answer the call...
Sorry, but appraisers can't just HC our way out situations where the client is asking us to do one thing and say another. There are certain conditions that are applicable to the use of an HC, and "my client wants me to ignore HBU so I can call the result the MV" isn't one of them.
I would develop the opinion of MV with HBU analysis indicating NO, the parcels have seperate HBU. Using the HC would be based on the buyer/owner seeking to own both parcels together as one. Given the motive to keep the two together enables the appraiser to value under the HC that they are merged. I have market evidence of owner's in this small town buying two lots seperately and then merging together. I'm not ignoring HBU, I'm valuing both parcels as one, the correct way, as if they were merged into one parcel. Noting in the report that the HBU is seperate... Ultimately this, in theory, would be a lesser value than the individual MV's of the parcels as improved and vacant respectively. I think in order to value the two parcels credibly and legally (USPAP) you can't do it without the HC that they are merged, or the parties involved can merge them before the closing. To me it's a preferred way compared to "value in use". Might I add that one of these scenarios involves 2 parcels that have previously transferred together, promoting more consideration of valuing together and frankly they should be merged as one as it truly reflects the use.
