1.5 year old garden condo

[NJ Valuator]

I classified a 1.5 year old garden condo as a C3; its appearance is no more superior to the 5 & 6 year old units within the same project. Client states that the subject should be a C2 which I do not necessarily disagree with. Do you have an age threshold for when you stop classifying as C2 and move on to a C3. As I stated, the subject's 1.5 year old appearance looks no better than the older units and there is no evidence of the younger units selling differently than the older ones. If there is no market support for an adjustment between a C2 subject and a C3 comparable I simply cannot make one.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If there is no market support for an adjustment between a C2 subject and a C3 comparable I simply cannot make one.

Then don't.

 

[glenn walker]

It's a C 2 by definition even if you make no adjustment ..Read Fannie Definition.

 

[Joe Flacco]

In most scenarios, I use C2 for 1-10 years old from construction or gut/renovation.

C3 for 10-20 years from construction or renovation. Or maybe older homes that have been updated in the 1-15 years.

Obviously if I am appraising a 10 year old home and I am using 8-12 year old homes as comps, then I am not labeling them a mix of C2 and C3 comps. In that case I might call them all C2 or all C3. It just depends. I used to stress out about where to draw the line but not really anymore. Same with the Q's.

 

[J Grant]

I classified a 1.5 year old garden condo as a C3; its appearance is no more superior to the 5 & 6 year old units within the same project. Client states that the subject should be a C2 which I do not necessarily disagree with. Do you have an age threshold for when you stop classifying as C2 and move on to a C3. As I stated, the subject's 1.5 year old appearance looks no better than the older units and there is no evidence of the younger units selling differently than the older ones. If there is no market support for an adjustment between a C2 subject and a C3 comparable I simply cannot make one.

The C and Q ratings are supposed to be absolute, not relative.

Unless it was very run down from the weather or another reason. I would give a 1.5-year-old dwelling a C2 because it's recently constructed and fits the definition.
If the market is not showing a price reaction between C2 and C3, then make no adjustment ( a zero ) and explain why.

 

[Surf Cat]

I classified a 1.5 year old garden condo as a C3; its appearance is no more superior to the 5 & 6 year old units within the same project. Client states that the subject should be a C2 which I do not necessarily disagree with. Do you have an age threshold for when you stop classifying as C2 and move on to a C3. As I stated, the subject's 1.5 year old appearance looks no better than the older units and there is no evidence of the younger units selling differently than the older ones. If there is no market support for an adjustment between a C2 subject and a C3 comparable I simply cannot make one.

It appears to me that you're mixing up condition ratings with quality ratings.

The condo is 1 1/2 years old..... it's near new condition which would be a C2.

Quality wise.... based on your description, it's Builder grade which would be a Q4. Maybe even a Q5 if it has those fiberglass shower stalls, cheap carpet or vinyl sheet flooring and formica counter tops. Bottom of the barrel cheap material.

This is not a hill I would die on. I would change it to C2. Read the condition ratings again.

Hopefully, you have comps from the same complex and one from another cheap a*s competitive project.