1 house 2 parcels

[Wayne Tomlinson]

I f the loan is not one of the above cited type of loan, don't worry about "What would Fannie do!" Appraise the property.

Wayne Tomlinson

 

[Couch Potato]

I suggest reading and following FHLMC guidelines on additional parcels rather than the opinions of someone you have only met on the Internet.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

http://appraisersforum.com/urgent-help-needed/119589-one-appraisal-two.html

 

[Urbanz]

In all due respect to assemblage or plottage... If both parcels have been sold together, the seller already did the assemblage, the appraiser is valuing the property by utilizing similar lots the same size, which does what? It shows the market value for all the land being appraised. Both parcels are included in the assignment, therefore there isnt two assignments, and its 5.7 acres, Duh?

Walter Kirk replied first and most correctly to the rest of yer question, IMHO...

 

[ANTHONY ALLEN]

Some of you are saying do not make it complicated keep it simple, but the other half of you are saying the opposite. I completed the report and explained the sittuation. I appriaised "AS IS" and I made it clear why I combined the two parcels PER LENDERS REQUEST.
I provided the plat with the to seperate parcels where the report ask about acreage I put 1.19 + 3.63.

 

[ANTHONY ALLEN]

Also in my opinion comparble sales with 5.63 acres which do not experience the problems that can accure with two seperate parcels just do not really appear to be comparable to me. The subject could possibly turn around and sell just one lot and true 5.63 lots will not experience the same process it will take for the subject if this makes since to you all.
True 5.63 parcels compared to 2 parcels that = 5.63 just does not appear to be apples to apples is all I am trying to say. Without the lot that the house sits on the othe parcel appears to be in big trouble without a easement or maybe there is a way to access it from the South but I could not tell from the plat. The parcel's marketability appears to be in question?
(The parcel without the house)

 

[Mike Kennedy]

VII, 102.04: Multiple Parcels as Security for Mortgage (06/30/02) which says, in part, "When the security property consists of more than one parcel of real estate, the parcels must be adjoining and zoned as "residential"; only one parcel may have a dwelling unit; and the mortgage must be a valid first lien on each parcel. For example, the mortgage may be secured by two parcels—one parcel on which the borrower's residence is located and another adjoining parcel that can have either no improvements or limited nonresidential improvements (such as a garage). The lender may amend the security instrument to include the conditions under which the adjoining lot subsequently may be released as security for the mortgage."

USPAP SR 1-4 (e)

in part : "When analyzing the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property, an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage. An appraiser must refrain from valuing the whole solely by adding together the individual values of the various estates or component parts."

 

[Richard Carlsen]

Some of you are saying do not make it complicated keep it simple, but the other half of you are saying the opposite. I completed the report and explained the situation. I appraised "AS IS" and I made it clear why I combined the two parcels PER LENDERS REQUEST.
I provided the plat with the to separate parcels where the report ask about acreage I put 1.19 + 3.63.
__________________

Anthony
You are a wise man and fast learner.

BTW, disregard what Mike posted. Those are not appraisal guidelines but are the Selling Guidelines that apply to the lenders (which you are not). We are not required to know or adhere to the Selling Guidelines except where they pertain to the appraisals. It is the lenders responsibility to know the Selling Guidelines in order to sell the resultant mortgage to FNMA.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"two separate parcels one with approx 1.78 acres and the house and the other as raw land @3.63 acres. I call the LO and explain the situation and he of course tells me to go ahead and do the appraisal as the entire 5.7 acres and the house"

Selling Guide quote apply to lender and the UW who will/should seriously question why 2 separate parcels were arbitrarily combined to increase lot area ..... ignoring USPAP 1(4)(e) and 1(3)(b). If done on new Fannie Form cannot use HC.

If done on new Fannie Form without an HC - combining the lot areas is misleading.

"the plat map which makes clear they are separate. I call the county and they even tell me the two parcels actually have two different addresses kind of like how a duplex would have 2222 lake & 2222R lake one of them has an R behind it."

The LO request is solicitation to incorrectly identify the subject site and "do the deal" as indicated by his "explosive reaction".

 

[Jim Onderisin]

I'd identify the associated permanent index numbers, describe the property, and get on with the appraisal.

As Wayne mentioned, this is fairly common. I've appraised a residential property on a suburban quarter-acre site which not only had two parcel numbers, but the house itself straddled a township line. Half was in one township with one parcel number, the other half was in another township with a different number. The owners said their house was schizophrenic.