Can it be an EA if it cannot be found to be false ?

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Theoretically speaking . . .

Integral to the definition of an Extraordinary Assumption [EA] is the statement ". . . which, if found to be false . . . "

That having been said, is it possible to apply an EA if the appraiser knows, definitively, that the EA cannot be found to be false? (If for example the only way the EA could be found to be false would be based upon building permits, although an exhaustive review of the property history reveals that contractory permit history does not exist.}

 

[Meandering]

The EA is for what you don't know, or are not sure about.
If you have evidence, of what is, then you need an HC to disavow what is, in favor of what could be.

.

 

[andrew81]

Theoretically speaking . . .

Integral to the definition of an Extraordinary Assumption [EA] is the statement ". . . which, if found to be false . . . "

That having been said, is it possible to apply an EA if the appraiser knows, definitively, that the EA cannot be found to be false? (If for example the only way the EA could be found to be false would be based upon building permits, although an exhaustive review of the property history reveals that contractory permit history does not exist.}

also integral to the definition is "uncertain information", relating to the appraisers opinion.

if YOU are certain, then its not extraordinary.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

The EA is for what you don't know, or are not sure about.
If you have evidence, of what is, then you need an HC to disavow what is, in favor of what could be.

.

----

I don't agree. The HC pertains to a factor that the appraiser knows to be false, but in this case it is a factor that he thinks is true but knows that it can't be proven to be either true or false . . .

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

also integral to the definition is "uncertain information", relating to the appraisers opinion.

if YOU are certain, then its not extraordinary.

---
But I'm NOT certain. That would be the rationale for applying an EA--which can neither be confirmed nor denied . . . so it doesn't fit the definintion of an EA or a HC...

 

[andrew81]

if you know it cant be proven false, then why do you not know it to be true?

 

[George Hatch]

Theoretically speaking . . .

Integral to the definition of an Extraordinary Assumption [EA] is the statement ". . . which, if found to be false . . . "

That having been said, is it possible to apply an EA if the appraiser knows, definitively, that the EA cannot be found to be false? (If for example the only way the EA could be found to be false would be based upon building permits, although an exhaustive review of the property history reveals that contractory permit history does not exist.}

The assumption is occurring at the appraiser, not at the event. It is the appraiser who is disclosing their assumption about something they have reason to believe but of which they aren't certain. Whether or not its possible to prove the fact, the appraiser's assumption is still an assumption.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

hat he thinks is true but knows that it can't be proven to be either true or false . . .

Because you "think" it cannot be proven wrong or right, does not mean it cannot be. Someone somewhere knows the answer or will be able to know the answer upon inspection by an expert...etc. Perhaps a destructive test, nevertheless, knowable. It is not an unknown unknown. Soft spot in floor? Maybe termites. OTOH, maybe not. Not my call.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

if you know it cant be proven false, then why do you not know it to be true?

---
The salient distinction is that although I know that it can't be proven false, I do not, however, know that it is false, but only that it can't be proven . . . to be either false or true...

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

The assumption is occurring at the appraiser, not at the event. It is the appraiser who is disclosing their assumption about something they have reason to believe but of which they aren't certain. Whether or not its possible to prove the fact, the appraiser's assumption is still an assumption.

----
I assume your perspective is accurate although it skirts the question posed in the OP concerning the literal definition of an EA . . . this line of questioning being based upon hypothetical testimony of an appraiser who would be hard pressed IMO to confirm the rationale for applying an EA, which could be neither confirmed nor denied, and consequently impinging his or her credibility . . .