Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[J Grant]

"can be equal" doesn't mean the concepts are the same or that including a value-in-use meets the requirements for providing the MV of the property.

Lots of types of value can return the same numerical result, but that still doesn't make them the same thing. In a hot market, the number from your MV analysis can and sometimes will be the same number you return with your "Liquidation Value" or "Disposition Value" . So although the number is the same, the different values are not synonymous with each other.

That is correct. Which leaves us with the required Market value opinion for property being appraised is the two conveyed together.

If an appraiser also develops a market value opinion for the vacant lot alone (I think they should ) , and reconciles that with a value in use for the lot as its role of contribution , and then provides a market value opinion for the property being appraised ( the two conveyed together) -do you see a problem with that If so, please state specifically what it is.

 

[J Grant]

"That USPAP does allow a market value opinion on multiple properties conveyed together? "

Yes, your subject can be a gas station property+apartment property+2/lot residential+oil refinery. That doesn't mean that selling them all together in that bundle will be the HBU for each of them.

Thanks... the answer to the question is YES then.

Lee and some others here are arguing it can not be done or is contrary to USPAP.

Indeed, disparate HBU of different properties sold as one/appraised as one need to be addressed

 

[glenn walker]

The "per regulations" is one of those "assignment conditions" which contribute to the SOW decision in the SOWR.

And no, a "value in use" opinion for the 2nd parcel is not a substitute for its MV.

Each parcel must be conveyed in its entirety.
	Parcels must be adjoined to the other, unless they comply with the following exception. Parcels that otherwise would be adjoined, but are divided by a road, are acceptable if the parcel without a residence is a non-buildable lot (for example) waterfront properties where the parcel without the residence provides access to the water). Evidence that the lot is non-buildable must be included in the loan file.
	Each parcel must have the same basic zoning (for example, residential, agricultural).
	The entire property may contain only one dwelling unit. Limited additional non-residential improvements, such as a garage, are acceptable. For example, the adjoining parcel may not have an additional dwelling unit. An improvement that has been built across lot lines is acceptable. For example, a home built across both parcels where the lot line runs under the home is acceptable.
	The mortgage must be a valid first lien that covers each parcel.

 

[George Hatch]

That is correct. Which leaves us with the required Market value opinion for property being appraised is the two conveyed together.

If an appraiser also develops a market value opinion for the vacant lot alone (I think they should ) , and reconciles that with a value in use for the lot as its role of contribution , and then provides a market value opinion for the property being appraised ( the two conveyed together) -do you see a problem with that If so, please state specifically what it is.

If you have a MV for each and a MV for both together then there's no reason to add a Value in Use for the 2nd lot.

 

[George Hatch]

That's quite a different appraisal problem and would have different HBU for the different properties.

However, the question was, does USPAP allow a single market value opinion on multiple properties together ?
Yes or no answer to the question..

No, it's the same problem and the same application and the same principle that's involved. Only the property types are different. That's how you test the reasoning - by seeing how well it holds up when you swap out some of the variables of the equation.

 

[George Hatch]

Each parcel must be conveyed in its entirety.
	Parcels must be adjoined to the other, unless they comply with the following exception. Parcels that otherwise would be adjoined, but are divided by a road, are acceptable if the parcel without a residence is a non-buildable lot (for example) waterfront properties where the parcel without the residence provides access to the water). Evidence that the lot is non-buildable must be included in the loan file.
	Each parcel must have the same basic zoning (for example, residential, agricultural).
	The entire property may contain only one dwelling unit. Limited additional non-residential improvements, such as a garage, are acceptable. For example, the adjoining parcel may not have an additional dwelling unit. An improvement that has been built across lot lines is acceptable. For example, a home built across both parcels where the lot line runs under the home is acceptable.
	The mortgage must be a valid first lien that covers each parcel.

Fannie can decide what parameters they have for what they'll accept and what questions they want to ask the appraiser. Fannie cannot instruct appraisers how to appraise or how to answer those questions. That's not their role, nor even their area of competency. Fannie is not an appraisal entity of any sort. Fannie's "assignment conditions" are otherwise subordinate to our minimums and cannot conflict. Because if one of them did conflict that would be an unreasonable assignment condition.

 

[J Grant]

If you have a MV for each and a MV for both together then there's no reason to add a Value in Use for the 2nd lot.

I suggested that very thing in a thread and got mud thrown at me for it. The name behind a post is currency here...

 

[J Grant]

No, it's the same problem and the same application and the same principle that's involved. Only the property types are different. That's how you test the reasoning - by seeing how well it holds up when you swap out some of the variables of the equation.

Fine, I can agree with that.

Still, your answer is yes, multiple properties, even properties which have their own different HBU can be appraised for one market value opinion.Which USPAP allows.

Some here were throwing mud and screeching no. To me. Maybe they won't to you.

 

[George Hatch]

Inasmuch as I occasionally perform appraisals on multiples Ima let you in on a little tidbit which you might not have considered. When the valuation scenarios in an assignment include providing a MV opinion for multiples under bulk sale conditions most appraisers include prominent labeling to that effect as well as commentary that the conclusion shouldn't be confused with the mv for each. Moreover, most such assignments do include the retail values for each unit as a *necessary* interim step towards getting the MV of the group.

For the most part that isn't happening in the Fannie assignments we're discussing in this thread.

 

[George Hatch]

Fine, I can agree with that.

Still, your answer is yes, multiple properties, even properties which have their own different HBU can be appraised for one market value opinion.Which USPAP allows.

Some here were throwing mud and screeching no. To me. Maybe they won't to you.

You should get off the idea that it's personalities that drive consensus. You get flack because of your habit of riding the obviously sinking ship all the way to the bottom. I never disagree with you because of who you are. I do disagree with some of your opinions, though; just the same as you disagree with some of mine.