Bad advice from Fannie--"Multiple Parcels" from Dec. 2019 'Appraiser Update'

[gregb]

You name the amount.

Why not set the payoff as loser gets a spray tan?

 

[Mr Rex]

I stay out in the sun and I understand GH is a surfer. A spray tan would not be punitive not likely to show up unless Trump orange. I'll reserve that for a beat down on Pete.

 

[George Hatch]

If you're so hot for something to change so Fannie won't be in conflict with the definition of value they are citing in their own form then maybe you should be wishing for Fannie to come up with their own definition of value that isn't dependent on the property's HBU. Then you guys will never have to learn how to perform an HBU analysis.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

 

[RCA]

View attachment 43226

You finally figured out they don't understand French. What is that saying? "If you know three languages you are called tri-lingual, if you know two, you are called bilingual, if you know just one, you're called American." then I was thinking of something else you could argue about: Whether to identify the IRS as an intended user in an Estate Appraisal. FAQ 125 and 157 say no? I see both opinions on the internet. IMO, if the appraiser wants, he can, under certain conditions (e.g.. the client says that is the only intended purpose), but you made some comment to the contrary in 2012 I just came upon. Probably not important though. Otherwise, should go on a different thread.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Whether to identify the IRS as an intended user in an Estate Appraisal

Yes for a gifting. No if a person is setting a cost basis for inheritance.

 

[Carnivore]

Again, skip the complaining and simply recognize that all you're doing is analyzing where your subject fits into the market. Is your property a house or is it an underimproved piece of land that needs to be cleared.


And this:

the public trust or the public interest as a GSE concept?

Doesn't exist as an appraisal standard. The reference in USPAP to the public trust is to the public trust in the appraisal profession. The GSEs are responsible for their own performance, not us.

If the lender wants to extend 95% financing to the extra parcel in that transaction then it makes no difference to us. If the lender doesn't want anything to do with a vacant land parcel, again, that makes no difference to us. What we *should* be objecting to is them asking us to obscure what it is they're doing with that extra parcel so that it won't be so obvious what they're doing.

Another profound statement above!

I have my rules to follow and they have their rules to follow. I am not going to be a willing participant in their expediency/quick fix scheme.

But lets switch this up a little and look at what they want you to do in relationship to the assignment; This in part has something to do with Turn Time, Fee. plus the inability to change the form and another Road Block is Banking Regulations. They want you to be a willing participant in circumventing Federal Banking Regulations. All for the one real reason; expediency!

There is a proper way to develop and Report this assignment within the FNMA Form. The solution will interfere with how an appraisal report is processed in the Loan Document generation process. That is there problem! Not mine!

This assignment is a not a Cookie Cutter FHA Grade Vinyl Village on Slab inside a Subdivision. 2-4 hour turn N Burn is not what we have here.

OK, some of you are saying there is a market for a house and an extra lot that has an HBU for a SFR Build(excess land). Yes, i won't argue with you about that! I am sure I have some of those in the area I work in. Somebody singular or a larger number of them have done just that. I seriously doubt that number is large relative to total SFR Single Improved Lot with an SFR sale within the my greater market area I serve..

Some of you are saying that on the 1004 the Opined Value of the Subject and extra lot is a Market Value. The difference between the two scenarios is Exposure time of each. I am pretty sure that this exposure time will be different. In many if not most cases this difference will be fairly large. I have not tried to develop that as an example in my area, but I don't think I am wrong. Then you develop the Exposure time of the two combined. That's really not going to be easy and will take way more time than you would like it to while your developing your report. Your really losing money! Your AMC Phone Monkey $350 bucks is peanuts for the task at hand.

Once the Word gets out via the State Boards... Newby Appraiser will run away fast or just winged it and throw a line item number in grid and at the bottom of page two.

Whats there risk? None! FNMA is not going to call you out and place you on there exclusionary list. The Lender got the OK from FNMA so they won't throw you under the Bus either...Except when the Loan Goes South. Better watch your Back here...Chase is alive and well and will blow you up at the drop of a hat! Those clowns showed up at My Appraisal Board with a Dump Truck full of REO's/short sales demanding my board investigate ALL OF THEM.

So there is a wildcard in play here that raises your Risk level way up! Mr Home owner trying to refinance his house and extra lot to solve a bad financial situation he got himself into and he/she is desperate. Along came you, and your MV collectively is way below his expectations and includes his new friend the loan officer. Loan Officer Good - Appraiser Bad!

Yep, Mr Homeowner has sent your report in to the State Appraisal Board! Week later you get that Letter from the Board! Then the fun begins! Good Luck you will need it!

So you all do what you want to do! I am not going to be a player! Unless they accept my Fee, and the way I report the Values, which they won't!

 

[RCA]

Yes for a gifting. No if a person is setting a cost basis for inheritance.

Really for another thread. I think part of the argument is that you must know the intended use, to specify the intended user. That is a weak argument, defies common sense, and is certainly not a universal practice among appraisers. Besides which, we pretty much know the realm of intended use by the IRS. USPAP even states the possibilities!

 

[Andrei Fin]

I am pretty sure that this exposure time will be different. In many if not most cases this difference will be fairly large.

Yes. Your subject property is both parcels. There is one effective date and one exposure time. You are correct in that the exposure time will normally be different for each component. But our subject is one property sold together. That's what makes it necessary to look at the "value in use" of the second parcel. Because the vacant parcel will not necessarily transfer for the same price as if listed separately. Most of the time it will require a discount, sometimes it could be the same, and in a few instances it could be greater. In all those cases it's still the "value in use".

 

[ddnma]

value in use. The value of a property assuming a specific use, which may or may not be the property’s highest and best use on the effective date of the appraisal. Value in use may or may not be equal to market value but is different conceptually.

From the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th Edition