Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[Meandering]

Doesn't change the fact that the land is still excess land.

No cigar.

No cigar for you.

The "value" of real estate is the "anticipated future".


Holding is not an excess.

The length of an investment holding, could vary dramatically, from the length of holding your are living in.

.

 

[Meandering]

Read your definition of value again. The market is folks. Which is exactly why the the HBU box should be checked "no" and the extra site valued in use per the scope of work. No HC is needed, no separate appraisal is needed.

Value in use is not allowed in a lending scenario that requires market value - per the definition per-printed on the form.

.

 

[J Grant]

Read your definition of value again. The market is folks. Which is exactly why the the HBU box should be checked "no" and the extra site valued in use per the scope of work. No HC is needed, no separate appraisal is needed.

Indeed, you are among the few who understand it.... though I disagree about HBU check no - at least as a generic pre determined decision for page one.

Either HBU of the properties with an improvement on one of the lots remains existing residential, or it does not. What determines that ? HBU can be marked no if appraiser believes that conveying a vacant lot along with a house means the house can no longer support its existing HBU as a residential property. But if the improvement contributes more to its lot and the lots then removing the improvement, why would HBU be marked no for existing residential? Remember, the HBU question on page one is not about the vacant lot any longer ( that has already been dealt with by appraiser ), the HBU now is asking about the existing residential use continues or not .

 

[Meandering]

An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an
assignment, that is contingent on any of the following:
1. the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value);
2. a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client;

An investment holding is not excess land.

If it where, the owners would have already assembled it into one parcel with one, lower tax bill, instead of two premium tax bills.

the market is speaking, when it does not assemble additional build able lots into a single parcel to escape being "over taxed".

But apparently appraisers aren't listening to the market speaking with the lack of assemblage.

.

 

[J Grant]

No cigar for you.
The "value" of real estate is the "anticipated future".
Holding is not an excess.
The length of an investment holding, could vary dramatically, from the length of holding your are living in..

Since many folks opt to hold excess lots in many markets, how can you say "holding is not an excess? "- or what does that mean..

Excess describes the land. Holding describes owner or buyer decision about the land.

The length of time people opt to hold a vacant lot vs listing it for sale or building shows demand and what participants in the market are doing.

 

[J Grant]

Value in use is not allowed in a lending scenario that requires market value - per the definition per-printed on the form.

There is a market value opinion, for the two properties conveyed for one price.

Value in use refers only to the interim use of the vacant lot as contributing to the two ....

 

[Andrei Fin]

Value in use is not allowed in a lending scenario that requires market value - per the definition per-printed on the form.

This would only be true if the two properties were separate, but since they are combined under the prelim, the market, and the scope of work as one economic unit- it's not.

 

[George Hatch]

Perform the analysis, develop the opinion, and proceed accordingly. If the form can't handle it then do a work around, just like you do with other inflexibilities in the form.

I don't know how simply sticking to the appraisal process can be blown into such a big controversy, enough so to devolve into the raging personality conflicts.

Parts is parts.

 

[George Hatch]

This would only be true if the two properties were separate, but since they are combined under the prelim, the market, and the scope of work as one economic unit- it's not.

3/4 of those elements are not part of an HBU analysis, and neither is the 4th if/when the appraiser skips its consideration.

There's nowhere outside of FannieWorld where this discussion would even take place.

 

[alebrewer]

There's nowhere outside of FannieWorld where this discussion would even take place.

What if, as is the case with my particular neighborhood, (1) it is typical for owners to own an improved lot adjacent to a vacant lot (same owner), (2) there is no history of sellers selling off the vacant lots, and (3) there is no attempt for sellers to assemble the two lots. Seems to me that, even if it's a port loan for a community bank, they might be interested in encumbering both lots under the same lien? Maybe not.