Appraisal Multiple Lots

[Lee Lansford]

The question for the bulk property, is the overall HBU as improved? Imo it is, since the improvement adds value to both lots, and both lots are encumbered by one mortgage lien... even though the second lot (if split and sold alone ) could have its own HBU...as part of the package, the HBU for the whole is as improved.... unless support is shown the house contributes so little value it is better off demolished -( which is not the case for the example ).

What?

No.

I do have to say--you bring a totally fresh new perspective to this situation .

 

[Lee Lansford]

But he DID provide an opinion of market value for the Bulk Transfer...in his post attachment 13582, "Market value of the two properties combined ( bulk value ) $350,000"

The additional 2 value opinions are not the issue. .

So?

 

[Michigan CG]

Since he did develop a OMV for the house as improved and the adjacent lot sold together as a bulk /package , why not put it on bottom of SC page since that fulfills the assignment from client, and report the other 2 value opinions on the addendum?..

Because it would be unacceptable appraisal practice and in order to do that you would have to check the NO box.

 

[Michigan CG]

and both lots are encumbered by one mortgage lien...

What does a lien have to do with any of this. Read your definition of Market Value.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It is one property, I suppose my family farm isn't a unitarian holding but six separate parcels, each with a "separate" HBU?

 

[Lee Lansford]

It is one property, I suppose my family farm isn't a unitarian holding but six separate parcels, each with a "separate" HBU?[/QUOTE


Terrel, for the problem that the OP presented to us, Denis in post #52 provided a good way to present the assignment results. We're not appraising a farm here as Fannie does not buy farm mortgages nor does Fannie (knowingly) purchase loans secured by vacant land.

 

[J Grant]

What does a lien have to do with any of this. Read your definition of Market Value.

My reference to one mortgage lien was made to relates to Fannie's UW to lend on a house with adjacent lot, and has nothing to do with the definition of market value.

 

[Lee Lansford]

My reference to one mortgage lien was made to relates to Fannie's UW to lend on a house with adjacent lot, and has nothing to do with the definition of market value.

The argument has not been what Fannie will lend on, but, the importance of having a competent appraiser (e.g., see post #52 for an appropriate approach to the development and communication of credible opinions of "value") is important as most certainly a "one size fits all" approach in the valuation of such property (properties) is not the correct approach.

 

[J Grant]

I never framed the argument for the appraisal about what Fannie will lend on, I mentioned that Fannie does lend on these properties ( since it was asked at one point)

Post 52 develops 3 market value opinions, which imo an appraiser would have to do in this assignment, the argument, if there is an argument, is where to put the market value opinions. Denis argues that the MVO for the combined lot and house be put on the addendum rather than on the bottom of page one. Where you put a market value opinion on a form does not change the fact that you provided a market value opinion, which meant the HBU was part of making that MVO opinion.

I fail to see how moving the MVO of the house and lot to the addendum instead of the bottom of page SCA makes it a better appraisal, because it simply moves the MVO client engaged appraiser for to another spot.


The real heart of this is not where to put the MVO on a form, but what is the HBU for the entire property when it is a bulk property, imo it is as improved- Denis and Mich CG agree 3 market value opinions including one market value opinin for the bulk sale, but they did not idncoate what HBU for the entire property as a bulk property they would assign as asked in the URAR, HBU as improved yes or no. They just seem to avoid it by saying put that MVO on addendum instead of on SC page. But to develop the MVO they'd still have to decide HBU for the entire property, so what is their answer. WE know the vacant lot can have its own HBU as a stand alone lot so that is not the issue either.

 

[Mark K]

It is one property, I suppose my family farm isn't a unitarian holding but six separate parcels, each with a "separate" HBU?

Not that far of a stretch.

I've appraised several farms that were comprised of multiple parcels where the HBU of some of the parcels was not agri use. Just because they plant corn or beans on an assemblage of 10 acre tracts doesn't mean that the HBU of the individual tracts is ag.