The Premier Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
-
Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
Income Approach?
- Thread starter CVal
- Start date
- Status
Why not exclude appraisers certified more than 10 years, the 4 year training with the MAI mentor really messed me up?
So what’s the answer to the question? You have the floor?
Fee simple is the exact same as leased fee?
Anyone here tough enough to tell me the answer?
Fee simple owner occupied is the exact same as fee simple leasehold.
I appraised a house today. I did it fee simple leasehold. It’s all the same.
Oh. Fee simple leashold doesn’t actually exist in law but you are trying to tell me it does exist?
Fee simple owner occupied is the exact same as fee simple leasehold.
I appraised a house today. I did it fee simple leasehold. It’s all the same.
Oh. Fee simple leashold doesn’t actually exist in law but you are trying to tell me it does exist?
gregb
Elite Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
This is right up others' alley. BTW, you need a spell check, leasehold.
D
Deleted member 152047
Guest
Addie, you have some really knowledgeable people in this thread attempting to give you good advice ( including myself). However, when you don't listen why would folks that know better argue with you?
Why does a chief appraiser and an MAI on this website agree with me? 2nd to last post on this thread?
https://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/fee-simple-vs-leased-fee.187099/page-7
https://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/fee-simple-vs-leased-fee.187099/page-7
J Grant
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Florida
"It is leased fee. The owner has given up various sticks in the bundle of rights in exchange for rent to a third-party. The owner has given up the right to
RE when an owner adds a leased fee to a property, it does not erase his fee simple ownership Rather, the leased fee rides on top of the fee simple ownership.
The valuation aspect is when a leased fee is present for the SC of the fee simple would be whether the price would be higher than, lower than, or equivalent to if the lease did not exist.
A third-party controlling the majority of the company of the leasehold can enforce its rights in a court of law. The owner has retained, in the bundle of rights, the right to transfer, gift, will, and mortgage (usually protected by a subordination clause in a lease). A well written lease should subordinate the tenant's rights to the superior eminent domain right that the government has over the fee simple rights.
Hence, the LF value is the As Is scenario.
We cannot assume that a big landlord will bully out a naive 23 y.o. tenant out of a valid apartment lease so that the LL can condominiumize the building in a hot market -- tho' this really does happen.
Therefore, the FS value does not exist unless a hypothetical condition is made.
I don't understand why the FS value "does not exist" unless a HC is made. Isn't t true that the fee simple rights of ownership still exists even when a leased fee is on a property, thus the fee simple can be valued? The fact that the fee simple value might be impacted ( either positively or adversely) by the creation of a leased fee on the property is part of the valuation problem ( unless appraiser chooses to only value the leased fee)
- use occupy
- quiet enjoyment
- demolish not use (etc, rest of the list )"
RE when an owner adds a leased fee to a property, it does not erase his fee simple ownership Rather, the leased fee rides on top of the fee simple ownership.
The valuation aspect is when a leased fee is present for the SC of the fee simple would be whether the price would be higher than, lower than, or equivalent to if the lease did not exist.
A third-party controlling the majority of the company of the leasehold can enforce its rights in a court of law. The owner has retained, in the bundle of rights, the right to transfer, gift, will, and mortgage (usually protected by a subordination clause in a lease). A well written lease should subordinate the tenant's rights to the superior eminent domain right that the government has over the fee simple rights.
Hence, the LF value is the As Is scenario.
We cannot assume that a big landlord will bully out a naive 23 y.o. tenant out of a valid apartment lease so that the LL can condominiumize the building in a hot market -- tho' this really does happen.
Therefore, the FS value does not exist unless a hypothetical condition is made.
I don't understand why the FS value "does not exist" unless a HC is made. Isn't t true that the fee simple rights of ownership still exists even when a leased fee is on a property, thus the fee simple can be valued? The fact that the fee simple value might be impacted ( either positively or adversely) by the creation of a leased fee on the property is part of the valuation problem ( unless appraiser chooses to only value the leased fee)
Like one of those posters said. It exists, just no one currently holds it.
Its pretty simple. Bank orders a fee simple appraisal that has a tenent in it with a lease.
Appraiser
“ the hypothetical fee simple value is $500k” a hypothetical condition was used as fee simple rights are contrary to what currently exist. This HC was used as a matter of fact”
The as is rights are leased fee. The leased fee as-is value is $500k.
The whole point is, you need to tell someone when you appraised something that is contrary to what exists.
Appraiser
“ the hypothetical fee simple value is $500k” a hypothetical condition was used as fee simple rights are contrary to what currently exist. This HC was used as a matter of fact”
The as is rights are leased fee. The leased fee as-is value is $500k.
The whole point is, you need to tell someone when you appraised something that is contrary to what exists.
And not getting on you. But that, article you cited, the guy was being questioned by regulators #1. #2 that link was buried in google (saw it) and is contrary to every other article.
I wonder why? Cause the guy was trying to make a case in front of regulators.
- Status