Manufactured Home Park Condominium

[Wally Jones]

This appears to be somewhat similar to Lawrence's question below about which form. The manufactured homes are all on their own small lots and taxed as real property. The park is recorded as a condominium in the public records. It seems the URAR would be more appropriate in this case since nothing about the development resembles what I've come to expect from a "typical condo" except for the common areas and the condo declarations. Any advice/guidance on this animal would be greatly appreciated. (The contract is for a conventional loan.)

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Try Judy Whitehead. I think she had a post about one like this about a year or so ago.

I think.....

 

[Don Clark]

8)

I have one such condominium in my market. I use the condo for. Why would that not be appropriate? The idea that a condominium is a certain type of archetcture is wrong. I know Fannie Mae as well as text such as the Appraisal of Real Estate seem to indicate some silly notion that you only own the air space within the walls of the unit. That is totaly false. A condominium is a form of ownership, not a style of archetecture. In my market we have the following type of condominiums:

1. High ris condo with ownership of the space within the walls
2. A converted 1950's style motel
3. A Manufactured home park with each double wide being a condominium unit
4. Townhouse style condominiums with ownership of all within the footprint
5. Duplex style units with 2 units comprising the entire condominium
6. Single family detached condominiums with seperate ownership of the improvements and the site
7. Condominium garden style units
8. Entire hotels where each room is a condominium unit with an agreed lease back to the hotel general partners that run the hotel operations, with a 14 day per year exclusive right to occupy by the unit owner, and a division of income by unit owners

There are other types but I think I have made the point. Use what the client request you to use. However, the PUD/Condo Form was made for condos.

Don Clark, IFA

 

[Wally Jones]

Pam, thanks. I may drop her a line.

Don, good comments. I have no problem using the condo form, it just seems that the URAR would lend itself to including more information about the subject and comparables without using addenda comments on the condo form.

I have a call in to the lender to see which they prefer.

Again, thank you both!

 

[Judy Whitehead (Florida)]

You didn't drop me a line, but I finally saw this......I used the 2055 - actually thought it was more appropriate. We have only one in this county but fortunately I was able to get 3 sales from that one, although one was more than a year old. I understand there are some in Tampa, but I don't believe Mike Seward had done any of the condo MH parks.

 

[Wally Jones]

Thank you, Judy. The lender wanted it on a URAR, so that's what I used with lots of comments about the condo declarations, etc.

I appreciate your response.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

I've done one of these over on a bay on Lake Michigan.

It is a site condo and as such, ownership is fee simple. I used a 1004 with no consideration for income or cost approach due to the common elements. This satisfied the lender. I was able to get sales from within the development. There were 5 in all I think with a couple going back a couple of years. My problem was that we had condos with frontage on the harbor itself and condos not directly facing the harbor although all had a boat slip as part of the package. All were high end HUD Code manufactured. It is the only one I know of in Northern Michigan.

Sometimes in cases like this, you have to be creative.

I like Judy’s the idea of using the 2055 for this kind of unit.