Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[CANative]

See, why do you have to do this? You are denigrating residential appraisers without ANY basis for doing so. This statement has absolutely no purpose other than to make a snide comment about a subset of all appraisers. It contributes absolutely zero to the discussion.

I didn't say residential appraisers don't, or can't, use DCF... I said "solid understanding." I suspect the number is lower than for commercial appraisers who likely use it far more often.

 

[Carnivore]

I didn't say residential appraisers don't, or can't, use DCF... I said "solid understanding." I suspect the number is lower than for commercial appraisers who likely use it far more often.

He wasn't addressing you, he was addressing my comment. When you made your point, i understood what you meant.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Lee, we understand it.. What we are saying/I am saying is that the MV opinion is for the two properties together , the value in use is the opinion addressing the second vacant lot as it contributes to the two

The dictironay of RE does state though that MV and value in use can be equal ( equal in $ amount ). Which still remains,as you said that one definition is not the other definition of value. It means market determines the $ amount value either definition applied when appraising a property

Once again, if the market...the market...says that the buyer of the one is not the buyer for the other...and the market (again, the market) tells us that the two are separate and distinct the one from the other, if you offer one value for the two, your value opinion is either Bulk Value or Value in Use (or, another essentially the same as) and not MV.

On the other hand, if the rightful conclusion is that the vacant parcel has a H&BU as additional "green" for the improved parcel...well, that's another story.

 

[alebrewer]

I didn't say residential appraisers don't, or can't, use DCF... I said "solid understanding." I suspect the number is lower than for commercial appraisers who likely use it far more often.

So I think, maybe, that is a less volatile statement - that commercial appraisers most likely use DCF more often than residential appraisers. There is just no reason to imply that a group of folks don't understand (i.e. have a solid understanding) it. You might be surprised at how many of us have a REALLY good working knowledge of DCF...

 

[CANative]

So I think, maybe, that is a less volatile statement - that commercial appraisers most likely use DCF more often than residential appraisers. There is just no reason to imply that a group of folks don't understand (i.e. have a solid understanding) it. You might be surprised at how many of us have a REALLY good working knowledge of DCF...

Us? I'm a residential appraiser too.

 

[Meandering]

Once again, if the market...the market...says that the buyer of the one is not the buyer for the other...and the market (again, the market) tells us that the two are separate and distinct the one from the other, if you offer one value for the two, your value opinion is either Bulk Value or Value in Use (or, another essentially the same as) and not MV.

On the other hand, if the rightful conclusion is that the vacant parcel has a H&BU as additional "green" for the improved parcel...well, that's another story.

If the second parcel has it's own tax ID #, and tax bill, and is individually described in a deed,

it is "another" property.

If the appraisal assignment is to appraise two properties under the same ownership, that is one story.

If the appraisal assignment is to include one property and any other contiguous property with the same owner, as if, all contiguous properties were the subject, that is a totally different matter, and requires an HC, without any "regard" to H&B, because the USPAP requirement is to describe THE subject property, and the engagement letter should spell out exactly which property(s) the appraiser is being engaged to appraise.

.

.

 

[alebrewer]

Us? I'm a residential appraiser too.

Then you'd be included in the 'us'...

 

[Lee Lansford]

If the second parcel has it's own tax ID #, and tax bill, and is individually described in a deed,

it is "another" property.

If the appraisal assignment is to appraise two properties under the same ownership, that is one story.

If the appraisal assignment is to include one property and any other contiguous property with the same owner, as if, all contiguous properties were the subject, that is a totally different matter, and requires an HC, without any "regard" to H&B, because the USPAP requirement is to describe THE subject property, and the engagement letter should spell out exactly which property(s) the appraiser is being engaged to appraise.

.

.

What, exactly, would be the appropriate HC where the market is quite clear that the vacant parcel and the SFR improved are separate and distinct the one from the other?

Not to forget, the use of a HC in our scenario will not be accepted by regulated lenders for an opinion of MV.

 

[Meandering]

What, exactly, would be the appropriate HC where the market is quite clear that the vacant parcel and the SFR improved are separate and distinct the one from the other?

Not to forget, the use of a HC in our scenario will not be accepted by regulated lenders for an opinion of MV.

The HC is made that the lots be assembled into a single property.

Making an HC does not require a market response.

EAs require credibility, because you are "assuming". HCs are direct statements of what your are directly imagining what has/what will, happen.

Viability or not of an HC, happens in the H&B analysis. Which, does not prevent any owner from assembling two desperate lots, as long as assemblage is legally permitted, and still allows you to appraise it, as if, the assemblage has already occurred.

And if a lender does not want the HC,

You should consult a "good" RE attorney before proceeding in a direction that favors the lender, in contrast to the appraisal "tools" you have been given, if each property is considered by a municipality as an individual property, without any regard to whom, in particular own, which or all of the individual properties.

And let's not debate the "double taxes" that would occur, if, the individual lot is being assessed by the municipality as "build able", while large lots are assessed at a lower tax rate, if they are simply considered to have "excess" land.

.

.

 

[CANative]

In the case of #273, with the information proposed, I would have offered to complete an appraisal of the improved property and a separate appraisal of the vacant lot, including both in the same report with the caveat not to combine the two values for this intended use.