Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[Lee Lansford]

Again, J, the FAQ citation as 'as if it were one lot' may be the cause of some of your animosity. Please don't try to keep perpetuating an argument that has, for the most part, been put to bed. If you like 'one economic unit' better, then just use that term. At the end of the day, you are RECOGNIZING them as separate, but you are APPRAISING them as if they were one (even though they are not). That is what the HC is for - determining that you can achieve credible results by treating something as if it were, even though you know it is not.

What "HC" are you referring to?

 

[alebrewer]

Actually- we are APPRAISING them as a combined property for one value, not appraising them as if they were one.... two properties under a same transaction can have a combined total value, or a combined price in a sale, but they remain per legal purposes divisible properties .

This is what I'm talking about - I think EVERYONE gets what you are saying - you don't have to keep repeating it. What I"m saying - for about the 15th time, is that there is a possibility that the FAQ is responsible for the disengagement, as the FAQ SPECIFICALLY says 'as if it were one lot'. Your argument is with the FAQ, not with me (or anyone else). Just please try to step back, take off your argument hat, and recognize that I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to help clarify FOR you. Either way, I'm done. You've exhausted me and this is pointless.

 

[alebrewer]

What "HC" are you referring to?

I really have nothing to say to you, sir.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Might be cleaner to see with a different product.

A seller sells two cars to a single buyer, the buyer takes out one loan that covers both cars for one purchase price.

Did that transaction merge the 2 cars into becoming one bigger car? No, it did not. the price was for both cars though. If an appraiser was hired for the lender , the appraised value would be for both cars together as one sale...but they remain 2 cars . And either car has the potential to be sold off in future by itself with a loan payoff/release.

So you are then OK with giving one opinion of--for what I take it you would label--"market value" where there is a conforming 60' x 150' in-town SFR parcel and the adjoining vacant 80-acre parcel (where "big-box" residential developers are just drooling to purchase) the two separate from the other in the eyes of the market and separate and distinct buyers for each.

If not, how does this differ from instead of the 80-acre vacant parcel, the vacant parcel is 60'x 150' and builders are just drooling to obtain the vacant site. Land value for each site is $350k and the market for the one is different from the other?

If you base you decision on what the lender wants or how 1 buyer (who is operating contrary to the market) or the owner wants you to appraise the property.

Remember--the appraisals are for use by a regulated lender who is in need of an opinion(s) of MV. Of course, you may also in addition provide an opinion of Value in Use.

I will watch for your credible response.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Lee Lansford]

I really have nothing to say to you, sir.

I thought that you might not have an answer as I assume you do understand, upon reflection, the problem with invoking such a HC.

 

[J Grant]

This is what I'm talking about - I think EVERYONE gets what you are saying - you don't have to keep repeating it. What I"m saying - for about the 15th time, is that there is a possibility that the FAQ is responsible for the disengagement, as the FAQ SPECIFICALLY says 'as if it were one lot'. Your argument is with the FAQ, not with me (or anyone else). Just please try to step back, take off your argument hat, and recognize that I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to help clarify FOR you. Either way, I'm done. You've exhausted me and this is pointless.

Please post the FAQ as if it were one lot...and the question it answers...unless I see it hard to comment !

I assume the FAQ asks a different question /different problem, but again, please post it. (sorry for exhaustion , really...on Xmas ...I am going to a party later, have morning at home so...)

 

[alebrewer]

Please post the FAQ you refer to and the question it answers...unless I see it hard to comment !

I assume the FAQ asks a different question /different problem, but again, please post it.

Huh? I DID post it, then afterwards, you asked me to post it again, at which time I referred you back to the original posting of the FAQ. And now you're asking me to post it again??? I mean this as a friend, J, but you may need to get checked for short term memory loss...

 

[alebrewer]

I thought that you might not have an answer as I assume you do understand, upon reflection, the problem with invoking such a HC.

I think you know that it has nothing to do with whether I have an answer or not. I am not surprised, however, that you resort to condescension yet again.

 

[J Grant]

So you are then OK with giving one opinion of--for what I take it you would label--"market value" where there is a conforming 60' x 150' in-town SFR parcel and the adjoining vacant 80-acre parcel (where "big-box" residential developers are just drooling to purchase) the two separate from the other in the eyes of the market and separate and distinct buyers for each.

If not, how does this differ from instead of the 80-acre vacant parcel, the vacant parcel is 60'x 150' and builders are just drooling to obtain the vacant site. Land value for each site is $350k and the market for the one is different from the other?

If you base you decision on what the lender wants or how 1 buyer (who is operating contrary to the market) or the owner wants you to appraise the property.

Remember--the appraisals are for use by a regulated lender who is in need of an opinion(s) of MV. Of course, you may also in addition provide an opinion of Value in Use.

I will watch for your credible response.

Merry Christmas!

No, I would not appraise a house with an 80 acre adjacent parcel as fannie describes! Are you serious, or making a ludicrously different example only way to make a point.

. Clearly that is a very different appraisal problem, an 80 acre parcel esp one that can be subdivided is a different appraisal problem and not one that would be assigned for residential regulated loan, and if it were should be declined...

Though it certainly can be appraised ! Maybe not by you lol.. an appraisal of a vacant 80 acre parcel could be done of course, and if the 80 acres sold along with a house the contributory value of the house would be very low or negligible.

 

[J Grant]

Huh? I DID post it, then afterwards, you asked me to post it again, at which time I referred you back to the original posting of the FAQ. And now you're asking me to post it again??? I mean this as a friend, J, but you may need to get checked for short term memory loss...

Maybe but I honestly can't find it in all these posts and when you directed me yesterday to post 115 ( was it 115?), it did not have the actual FAQ, just a reference to it.