Atrium, Living Square footage or not

[James Andreas]

A word to the wise Mr Andreas .. YOU SHOULD NEVER REVIEW. YOU invoked the extraordinary assumption HE DIDNT know what he was looking at. That sir, is quite dangerous and a bit assuming on your part. It seems you think you know better what he inspected.
Your feelings aside, HE saw it ... You didn’t .... that in my mind lends more creditability to him ...

PE, thanks for the direct and forthright opinion. Whether I agree or not, your comments are always thought provoking and direct.

Should I assume the original appraiser was right in calling the area GLA – using the “he saw it” credibility defense?

The data lacks credibility and precludes making any reasonable assumption. My assumption is based solely upon available data. I cannot place blind faith in the appraiser’s unqualified diligence or competence. We have not seen a report or photos. Based upon the evidence, I don’t think I know better; I think I need to know more before jumping to a conclusion.

Faced with questionable data and given the choice - - of erring towards assuming the appraiser was right versus vs. applying diligence and validating the credibility of the data, I’ll place my faith in the data. As far as I’m concerned “partially open” has as much meaning as “partially pregnant”. My feelings are derived purely from the evidence.

I enjoyed one of my assignments this week, appraising a $450,000 property that was valued (and refi’ed 7 months) ago at $650,000 in a – quoting the report – “market of increasing values”. I thank that reviewer for being so astute and concluding that the subject was comparable to the 4 highest sales in the preceding 4 months. The original appraiser even included a run of 76 “comps” for the preceding 6 months where 67 sold for less than $530,000. Ignoring the data and placing blind faith in the appraiser, maybe I could reach the same erroneous conclusion. Now, that is someone who should never review again.

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Ok, Time Out! Let me settle it...IT'S NOT GLA. End of discussion.

 

[Michigan CG]

Ok, Time Out! Let me settle it...IT'S NOT GLA. End of discussion.

I said that 50 posts ago but nobody listened.

In this day and age, with the current scrutiny why would anybody risk their license calling this GLA?

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

I find it interesting, nothing against you Mr Van Hooser .. but Im in a state that is non disclosure and I could give a crap what the assessor has. We rely on our own work here and not that of someone that is working in a sweat shop having not seen a house in years and years.
Im glad my state is non disclosure .. sounds like many are spoiled having their assessors records.

Personally, I don't rely on county records with regard to property characteristics. However, it is another set of data I need to consider. If I measure the subject, exclude the atrium, and come up with 2200 sqft., and the county says 2344 sqft. then it's obvious to me that they either included the atrium, or my tape has stretched. It's just as obvious that they may have no idea the atrium is there. However, if my comparables, which appear to be model matches, are listed in MLS as 2,344 and don't mention an atrium in the write up, I have another piece of information I need to extract from the listing agent of that comp.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Mr Andreas ... my comment that you shouldnt review is based upon your issuance of an extraordinary assumption that the original poster was wrong. If you do that with every assignment they must be terribly difficult for you to do. If you have first hand knowledge which contradicts that of the poster please put it forward. If its merely speculation then, yes, I belive I am right.
I dont doubt your ability to do good reviews, my point was the ease with which you simply dismissed what the poster said, not having further evidence to refute it.
Honestly, I think most of us here are in agreement that AS POSTED, the atrium (iterior patio) is not heated living area.
It is upon interjecting so many other thoughts, and assumptions, and I know more than you do, thoughts .. that these threads become so convoluted that they are hard to follow and somewhat misleading.
All have great thoughts ... and we each do things as we see best.
My point of posting here is to try to impart what I believe will keep someone from going before their state board for doing something without thinking.
I wish you the best.

 

[Couch Potato]

Ah, the fun never stops here! Well apparently the city of Orinda considers a fully enclosed atrium to be not just "floor area" but "interior floor area". This is in contrast to a carport which is part of the general "floor area". Nice of you to omit this tidbit in your post. If you can find a similar city ordinance that states a "fully enclosed atrium" is not "interior floor area" then we'll have data that shows different cities view an enclosed atrium area differently.

The stuff between the interior walls is just "floor area," like a carport, in the ordinance too. Only an atrium is identified "interior floor area." Frankly I think your are totally misinterpreting the statute, but that is just my opinion. The comment on atriums is to distinguish them from porches and patios, not to equate them with the living area of the house. Orinda is very concerned about remaining a "rural" area.

More to the point, the atrium described at the beginning of this thread is described as having a partial roof; hardly a fully enclosed area.

 

[James Andreas]

PE, your are a gentleman, I respect your opinion, and hope you have a great day. Always a pleasure to read your posts. Thanks again!

 

[James Andreas]

ooops....and your summation was well taken. Thanks x2.

 

[Fred]

Even if that was true, it's not relevant. It's not that he didn't measure or didn't calculate GLA. He did meausre and is calculating GLA. Getting this wrong is getting near or into the significant error region.

Based on what definition Mr. Santora?

If the appraiser describes what is being calculated and is consistent throughout the appraisal, the appraiser is has done his/her job correctly.

What defintion? Which word is giving you trouble: significant or error?

The second souinds like misidentifying something becomes OK if you misidentify it consistently. I am not sure why there would be more virtue is of overstating the GLA in all three approaches, instead of just one.

 

[Vegan702]

Must be slow around the country.