Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[Andrei Fin]

where the market is quite clear that the vacant parcel and the SFR improved are separate and distinct the one from the other?

If the market were actually saying this, then you wouldn't be asked to do such an assignment, because the market isn't going to leave that money on the table.

 

[Lee Lansford]

If the market were actually saying this, then you wouldn't be asked to do such an assignment, because the market isn't going to leave that money on the table.

Apparently not so as this is why this string began in the first place.

 

[Lee Lansford]

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.

Of course you are correct. You know what you are doing.

 

[Meandering]

If the market were actually saying this, then you wouldn't be asked to do such an assignment, because the market isn't going to leave that money on the table.

While "the market" may not leave money on the table,

individuals will.


Unless we're speaking of the appraisal "market" and recognize the history of appraisal fee decisions..................................


.

 

[Lee Lansford]

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.

.

.

Folks may elect to assemble contrary to H&BU.

 

[Michigan CG]

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.

Which is exactly the way it should be done.

 

[Michigan CG]

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

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

No cigar.

 

[J Grant]

While "the market" may not leave money on the table,
individuals will.
Unless we're speaking of the appraisal "market" and recognize the history of appraisal fee decisions..................................

When predominant actions of individuals comprise a trend, then the market is that trend ( actions of typically motivated parties ). There are always a few atypically motivated in any market or area. If enough owners elect to leave their land vacant and few buyers are purchasing them at good enough prices to induce a sale, then the "market " for vacant lots it is not maximally profitable to sell at that time

 

[Meandering]

Folks may elect to assemble contrary to H&BU.

I believe I said that, in a different manner.

.

 

[Andrei Fin]

Folks may elect to assemble contrary to H&BU

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.