Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[J Grant]

You actually typed this.

First, you cannot mix Value in Use with Market Value. Second, if the land is surplus this is not even a discussion.

Read the Dictionary of Real Estate on it.
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”. (The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th Edition).

I never said to "mix value in use with market value" .I said the market value and mixed use value may be the same/equal ( as above, source ). Please stop attributing things to me I never said !

 

[J Grant]

Exactly. And in the definitions of EXCESS land, excess land has its own Highest and Best Use. The more you post the more you condemn your opinion. But this is nothing new.

Excess land can have value in use as one of its HBU e possibilities. The above from dictionary of Real Estate also shows value in use and MV can be equal, reconcile a HBU determination-

if vacant land HBU is develop or sell today, why is the lot sitting vacant and been sitting vacant for years ? Maybe the market is not there yet to sell or build today. Maybe it is . That is specific for each appraisal.

Can you please leave the personal out, , as a moderator it looks terrible, comments like you condemn your opinion but this is nothing new. Present your point as methodology - it will stand or not.

 

[J Grant]

his thread and many over the last decade is depressing as there is basically ONE poster who does not get it and she has not understood basic appraisal practice for as long as I have been a moderator on this forum which I think is about 2006.

You should be fired as a moderator for saying this. Several agreed with me, including Geg B, a commercial appraiser. Ask George Hatch what he thinks. Saying I am the only ONE is a lie, and saying I have not understood basic appraisal practice since 2006 is another lie. You don't like it that we disagree with result on some threads, my point of view turned out to be well supported . So you claiming I am some kind of idiot then makes people discount it when my view turns out well supported. You can not stand to be "wrong" in a thread. We all are "wrong" sometimes....or our perspective can be modified.

A shame threads become an ego struggle and ugly to produce a winner and a loser, instead of people discussing an issue. But that is the tone you set as the active voice moderator .

 

[J Grant]

I think this a good point, very good point.

This thread and the other thread posted related to this topic is a mostly OBVIOUS appraisal 101 discussion.

This thread and many over the last decade is depressing as there is basically ONE poster who does not get it and she has not understood basic appraisal practice for as long as I have been a moderator on this forum which I think is about 2006.

There are some very smart people on this forum and I don't understand why they respond to Jgrant's posts but I am guilty of it too. Her posts over the last decade PLUS have given bad advice on more issues than I can count. This whole discussion would be a lot more educational if she did not post so much with uneducated views.

This thread and the previous thread is a serious issue and the topic is serious as it is contrary to USPAP and the basics of Highest and Best Use if the H and B is done correctly.

I hate to say this but, folks, quit responding to her ignorance of Highest and Best Use; she doesn't understand it.

As a moderator I don't have the ability to put her on IGNORE but everyone else does. It is frustrating to read her posts. Arguing with her or trying to educate her is like arguing with my 8 year-old about the reality of Santa.

This forum suffers because of these types of completely uninformed posts and the lack of understanding of basic appraisal practice.

You can not admit your stance that this assignment means combining the two lots into one large one is incorrect. . Let the smart people who respond to my posts speak for themselves. Maybe they see merit in what I write. I doubt they would respond othersise.

Nothing I posted is contrary to USPAP. If it is, then line item it here ; paste something I wrote from a post and then post the section or line where it is contrary to USPAP

I did not give bad advice on this, I was one of the few who recognized what the fannie example really broke down to , and several understood/agreed with me including 2 cert gens. My standing up for what was correct reading of what fannie actually wrote, which you would never want to admit I had a point that was more germane to the problem...so you bash me, incredible.

 

[J Grant]

deleted

 

[Lee Lansford]

This forum suffers because the nastiness and bullying has driven a number of the more astute and knowledgeable appraisers away. I had a couple of PM from them telling me exactly that. As far as my posts, the latter half of the thread was a good discussion of HBU....nobody has to respond to any of my posts, the fact that some "smart people" do and creates interesting discussions speaks for itself.

BTW, combining (as in "one value for the two") 2 parcels, each having its own H&BU separate the from the other, the value being opined to is either Bulk Value or Value in Use.

I offer this for others who are considering this matter. So, yes, there can be one opinion of 'value, but we have to be careful in our use of value definitio. I appreciate that you have charted another course on this, but, again, for others to be aware of.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Sure it MIGHT be. That is why we do Highest and Best Use analysis. A highest and Best Use analysis might take a sentence or it might take three pages for a residential assignment. Most residential appraisers do not have the ability to analyze that much. The LENDER want them both appraised together and therefore the appraiser does it.

If an appraiser does the job correctly they can make an argument that the land is either excess or surplus. The argument should be clear. Lee Lansford gave some very good examples in this thread and the related thread.

This thread (and the related thread) proves again that many people in our industry are poorly trained or do what the AMC tells them to do to retain the AMC client with idiot reviewers and "appraisers".

You understand.

A few others in this thread understand.

Obviously, not all understand. That's the way it is.

As I mention in my post #206, the value opinion that JGrant is opining to when she combines (as in "offering one value opinion for the two") the SFR improved parcel with the vacant parcel and--again, for clarity--where the two each has a H&BU separate from the other, the value being opined to is either Bulk Value or Value in Use (or other similar-type definition) but certainly not Market Value.

 

[J Grant]

BTW, combining (as in "one value for the two") 2 parcels, each having its own H&BU separate the from the other, the value being opined to is either Bulk Value or Value in Use.
I offer this for others who are considering this matter. So, yes, there can be one opinion of 'value, but we have to be careful in our use of value definitio. I appreciate that you have charted another course on this, but, again, for others to be aware of.

Above seems you can agree - the value in use for the vacant lot is fannie guidance on it and can be determined by appraiser. What I have argued for pages, geez.

What you refer to as Bulk value, I would not call it bulk value, it is the opinion of market value for the entire property, which consists of the improvement and vacant adj lot conveyed together for one market value opinion.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Above seems you can agree - the value in use for the vacant lot is fannie guidance on it and can be determined by appraiser. What I have argued for pages, geez.

What you refer to as Bulk value, I would not call it bulk value, it is the opinion of market value for the entire property, which consists of the improvement and vacant adj lot conveyed together for one market value opinion.

Of course you would not call it Bulk Value . It is Bulk Value, you 'merely' choose to label it what it is not .

You will have to re-read what I offered as what you are presenting above is not correct.

You can offer one value opinion for the two, BUT, the value definition that you are opining to is either Value in Use or Bulk Value. What it is NOT is MV.

But, I knew that you would chart your own course on this. My posts are for others so that they not fall into err.

 

[J Grant]

Of course you would not call it Bulk Value . It is Bulk Value, you 'merely' choose to label it what it is not .

You will have to re-read what I offered as what you are presenting above is not correct.

You can offer one value opinion for the two, BUT, the value definition that you are opining to is either Value in Use or Bulk Value. What it is NOT is MV.

But, I knew that you would chart your own course on this. My posts are for others so that they not fall into err.

My own course ....perhaps a few smart appraisers at fannie understand the issue...

What you call bulk value would be , perhaps the market value opinion for two properties sold together Any "bulk" affect on the value or if results in a discount is for appraiser to determine,-but I do not recall anything in USPAP prohibiting an appraiser providing a market value opinion for multiple properties sold for a single price/conveyed together.