Another question about multiple parcels.

[TruJa]

Working on a conventional refi for a property on ~1ac with a recently built newer home. The owner also owns another slightly larger parcel adjoining this. The second lot is owned outright (according to the owner) and is NOT part of the mortgage with the house, is a flaglot (has access to roadway), and appears it would be excess land if under the same mortgage. I thought this was a pretty clear cut case of 2 parcels which shouldn't be valued together, although Fannie seems to encourage this. The underwriter has sent a revision wanting me to respond to title identifying that 2nd parcel. I don't know what they are getting at, but do you have any ideas? If it is true that they are not encumbered by the same loan, is it even possible to value them together?

 

[alebrewer]

If it's not to be encumbered, I doubt if they want you to include it in the report. My guess is that they're simply asking you to acknowledge that the owner owns the adjacent lot as well - although I'd recommend asking for clarification from the client - not the clowns (like me) who lurk on this forum...

 

[TruJa]

If it's not to be encumbered, I doubt if they want you to include it in the report. My guess is that they're simply asking you to acknowledge that the owner owns the adjacent lot as well - although I'd recommend asking for clarification from the client - not the clowns (like me) who lurk on this forum...

I did ask for clarification, but the clowns working for the lender won't respond, and I hate getting these notices about how I need to respond. I'll take (most of) the clowns on this forum over the ones at the bank any day.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The owner also owns another slightly larger parcel adjoining this. The second lot is owned outright (according to the owner) and is NOT part of the mortgage with the house,

Why would you add a lot if it wasn't part of the assignment? Or did they tell you to appraise everything the guy owned? If they cannot give me a clear answer to exactly what I am to appraise, I stop and require them to spit it out before I proceed.

 

[TerryRohrer]

If they provided an address without a legal description, and the second tract is not necessary for the improvements you appraised to be legal and functional, then you have no duty to include the second parcel, and commenting on it within your appraisal will simply add to the confusion. I would send them one clear message to that effect, and then let them figure out how to complete their job, and how to order the title opinion they need.

 

[RSW]

Are both lots recorded on the same deed? If so, you would have needed to use a HC and call it either excess land or surplus land. That is most likely why it showed up in the title search.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Are both lots recorded on the same deed? If so, you would have needed to use a HC and call it either excess land or surplus land. That is most likely why it showed up in the title search.

That is completely false. If each tract is legally described as a separate parcel, there can be thousands of parcels on one deed, and each one is still a singular tract of land.

 

[RSW]

That is completely false. If each tract is legally described as a separate parcel, there can be thousands of parcels on one deed, and each one is still a singular tract of land.

No it's not.

 

[Mark K]

The underwriter has sent a revision wanting me to respond to title identifying that 2nd parcel.

What legal was on your appraisal order? One or both parcels?

A deed can have multiple parcels and the bank can loan on one, two, three, or all of them. If both are on one deed, simply state the appraisal is for only one (the one specified on the appraisal order) in spite of the fact that the deed has two parcels.

 

[TruJa]

One parcel on legal. Here's an update: after spending a lot of time calling, and calling, I was finally able to talk to a senior planning official with the county. It turns out that it is more probable than not in his opinion that this ~3YO house was built over a property line. The owner may have known this (she owns both parcels), because after confronting her with this information her story has changed about where the property line is. I had previously confirmed with her and a county P&Z tech (yes the same county that apparently let them build over a property line). Now I get to spend my weekend correcting this mess. Woo hoo! This is a good catch by title, because I can only imagine the number of issues that could arise out of this. I'm angry with the owner and frustrated with the county for being incompetent, and myself because I feel like I should have caught this too, and it would have saved a lot of work now.