Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[George Hatch]

There is an optimum MV under the strictest current interpretations of USPAP and there is an "As Is" market value. I suspect that the next USPAP update will address this. At least this go round they have something of substance to address in the biennial changes. The current "strict" interpretation" does not account for potential future increases in value that may exceed the current $1 more standard.

The ASB is not going to address this issue in USPAP. They might issue an FAQ reminding appraisers to stick to the assumptions of the definition of value being used but that's about the extent of it.

 

[George Hatch]

The value in use is only for the component of the vacant lot, the appraisal opinion of market value is for the entire property ( the improvement and lot )

The market value of the property includes the consideration of HBU, so there is no ignoring the HBU of the separately marketable parcel.


Fannie has run into the mountain, which will not yield to them even though they are "the largest lender in the galaxy".

They're a GSE - a business - not the government itself. There is no Jurisdictional Exception for them to claim.

 

[Lee Lansford]

On Tuesday 1/8 I learned that Fannie is working on a "clarification" as to their recent statement regarding this issue.

Stay tuned.

 

[Mr Rex]

I'm guessing it will say OK to check the NO H&BU box and we will still accept. WOW!

 

[Andrei Fin]

The market value of the property includes the consideration of HBU, so there is no ignoring the HBU of the separately marketable parcel.


Fannie has run into the mountain, which will not yield to them even though they are "the largest lender in the galaxy".

Nobody asked you to ignore it.

 

[J Grant]

MV opinion for vacant lot alone and MV opinion for house on its site can both be developed within the report, but the appraisal is for the MV opinion for the 2 properties conveyed together

The MV for the total might be a discount or not - The market determines that. Surveying RE agents is a viable way to compensate for lack of similar sales.

The only time value in use enters into it is if indicated as the interim use of the vacant lot for being encumbered under a mortgage with the house. They are not asking for a value in use opinion instead of a MV opinion,, it is a market value opinion for the 2 properties conveyed together .
BTW if the biblical length personal rants about me being the top poster were removed this thread would be half its length lol....

 

[George Hatch]

Can't disregard it in the value conclusion either, which essentially IS what they were asking. And with which you apparently agree.

 

[Mr Rex]

Nobody asked you to ignore it.

I didn't see that in the newsletter either. Maybe I didn't get the USPAP insider version?

 

[George Hatch]

MV opinion for vacant lot alone 90k . MV opinion for house on its site 200k. (both can be opined as part of the appraisal but they are not the MV opinion appraisal asks for which is the MV of the 2 together

They can be and sometimes are, under certain circumstances.

 

[gregb]

The ASB is not immune to current or long-standing appraisal issues.

http://www.omagdigital.com/publication/?i=523612&article_id=3178504&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:523612,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22publication_id%22:%2235955%22,%22article_id%22:%223178504%22}