ADU Comparable

[alebrewer]

Asking /instructing either way the client conveyed the idea not to value the part built ADU to the appraiser - which the appraiser is free to push back against of course.

So now you're saying there is no difference between asking someone for something, and instructing them do do something? Surely you jest.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

excluding the partial construction at client request can be misleading.

USPAP allows a partial interest appraisal. Banks do it all the time. Someone has land and they financed a MH thru the manf. home dealer. The bank is carrying the loan on the land so they want a land appraisal sans manufactured home.

 

[J Grant]

So now you're saying there is no difference between asking someone for something, and instructing them do do something? Surely you jest.

My post did not say that. As usual, you nit-pick a word in isolation to go down a rabbit hole of----off topic petty nonsense. Not going to play

 

[sputnam]

You can't value the ADU subject to completion because that is not what the Client wants. Since the Client doesn't want as complete, that leaves 'as-is'... but they don't want that either. So, you get to appraise a physical segment. You omit the ADU from the valuation analysis. An EA or HC is not required. You don't have to pretend like it isn't there. You are simply not including that portion of the property in the bundle of rights you are appraising. You do need to briefly describe that ADU and state that at Client request, the ADU is not included in the valuation. Keep a good work file.

 

[J Grant]

You can't value the ADU subject to completion because that is not what the Client wants. Since the Client doesn't want as complete, that leaves 'as-is'... but they don't want that either. So, you get to appraise a physical segment. You omit the ADU from the valuation analysis. An EA or HC is not required. You don't have to pretend like it isn't there. You are simply not including that portion of the property in the bundle of rights you are appraising. You do need to briefly describe that ADU and state that at Client request, the ADU is not included in the valuation. Keep a good work file.

The problem with this advice is it means the appraiser is turning in a misleading report on the rationale the client asked for it. The client is not signing the appraisal, we are. That is why the option exists for an appraiser to refuse an assignment condition and thus decline the order (or make the client remove the condition). Saying the part built ADU exists but we excluded it at client's request does not erase the problem.

Okay, a client asked the appraiser to exclude the part finished ADU. Clients can ask for anything, Seems they often find an inexperienced appraiser to hand these types of assignments off to, perhaps knowing an experienced one would not go along with it. The market value opinion purpose asks for to value a subject property as a whole., not a segment of it. That is why we don't get to exclude pools, garages, or half a house because a client asks for it on a URAR. (unless it meets a pre-printed HC, which normally it does not )

 

[sputnam]

The problem with this advice is it means the appraiser is turning in a misleading report on the rationale the client asked for it. The client is not signing the appraisal, we are. That is why the option exists for an appraiser to refuse an assignment condition and thus decline the order (or make the client remove the condition). Saying the part built ADU exists but we excluded it at client's request does not erase the problem.

Okay, a client asked the appraiser to exclude the part finished ADU. Clients can ask for anything, Seems they often find an inexperienced appraiser to hand these types of assignments off to, perhaps knowing an experienced one would not go along with it. The market value opinion purpose asks for to value a subject property as a whole., not a segment of it. That is why we don't get to exclude pools, garages, or half a house because a client asks for it on a URAR. (unless it meets a pre-printed HC, which normally it does not )

No... it's not misleading. You still disclose and explain. It's market value of a portion of the property. You properly describe what you are appraising. It's no different, in principle, than when you are ask to appraiser 1 acre of a larger parcel.

 

[J Grant]

No... it's not misleading. You still disclose and explain. It's market value of a portion of the property. You properly describe what you are appraising. It's no different, in principle, than when you are ask to appraiser 1 acre of a larger parcel.

But the appraisal is NOT to ask for the market value of a portion of the property. A client asking for a portion does not change that, even with disclosure, because in order to appraise a portion of a property to exclude something that exists requires an HC, and adding an HC is not allowed on the URAR, only the ones printed can be used.

The form asks to value the WHOLE property. I understand what valuing a portion of the property means. We are not stupid here on the res side! We just understand what is and what is not required given the certs about EC and HC on the URAR form (I refer to the form because it comprises bulk of lender work and since lender work is bulk of res orders it dominates the threads )

 

[alebrewer]

My post did not say that. As usual, you nit-pick a word in isolation to go down a rabbit hole of----off topic petty nonsense. Not going to play

Words have meaning, J. To wit:

Here is the OP: "They asked if I could note the ADU in the report but not include it in the valuation because construction is not yet complete."

Here is your response: "The AMC is instructing you how to do the appraisal wrt value"

A small change, I grant, but those two words could not be more diametrically opposed. You intentionally denigrated the AMC by changing those words. Doesn't really matter to me - I have no idea who the AMC is. It's just extremely annoying that every single post gets twisted into an AMC hate rant. Seems to me an attempt to actually assist the OP would have been more productive. That's just me, though.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

(I refer to the form because it comprises bulk of lender work and since lender work is bulk of res orders it dominates the threads )

The OP says the 1004, but is not explicit as to the actual ultimate lender - is it secondary market (conventional) or "in house" - non-conforming conventional loan. So is the 1004 explicitly required as a secondary market issue? If so, you are correct. But the OP is vague about the ultimate lender only that it is a "refinance"...

 

[J Grant]

Words have meaning, J. To wit:

Here is the OP: "They asked if I could note the ADU in the report but not include it in the valuation because construction is not yet complete."

Here is your response: "The AMC is instructing you how to do the appraisal wrt value"

A small change, I grant, but those two words could not be more diametrically opposed. You intentionally denigrated the AMC by changing those words. Doesn't really matter to me - I have no idea who the AMC is. It's just extremely annoying that every single post gets twisted into an AMC hate rant. Seems to me an attempt to actually assist the OP would have been more productive. That's just me, though.

Yes it's just you though.