Mobile Home Fee Simple?

[weezer]

I am looking for some clarification on the correct terminology to use to value a mobile home. The mobile home was constructed in 1968 and is located on a leased pad site. The purpose of the report is to determine the market value of the home as a utility project will require the home to be moved. Since the homeowner does not own the land it is my understanding "fee simple" would not be correct since they do not own all of the bundle of rights. Leasehold interest also crossed my mind, but that doesn't make sense either. I think the correct way to handle it would be by saying "Fee Simple" subject to land lease or something similar to this?

I would appreciate your thoughts

 

[JTip]

Chattel.

Find sales of lot rent mobile homes (pre '76).

 

[CANative]

"Lot rent mobile homes" will have a value above and beyond the depreciated RCN because there is a value attributable to their location in the park. A 1968 may have a book value of less than $5,000 but will sell as is, where is for $35,000 (for example.)

OP... if the utility company is paying all the costs for moving the house to another park then I don't see the purpose of estimating value. On the other hand, if they move the house to a lesser park then there may be a loss to the owner. If they move it to a better park then the owner needs no compensation other than for the hassle of not having a home for a couple of weeks.

But it's really hard to find MH parks that will allow pull ins of coaches that old. At least no good parks. Need more detail.

 

[Howard Klahr]

Leasehold is the correct terminology of what you have described. Why is it that you do feel it is appropriate?

 

[CANative]

Leasehold interest on a MTM rental basis? Without the house there are no property rights.

 

[leasedfee]

I'm with JTip's and CANative. Fee simple is an estate concept, and definitely not applicable. It's personal property or chattel is good too.

 

[Howard Klahr]

"Lot rent mobile homes" will have a value above and beyond the depreciated RCN because there is a value attributable to their location in the park.

a) Nowhere does any information posted indicate a MTM lease
b) In order for your assertion that there is value attributable to the location ascribed to the tenant then here must be a leasehold value or there would be no location value to the tenant

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I think I am w Howard here. Yes, it is personal property perhaps, I am not familiar with the state law. But if on rented land, a dwelling is usually considered to be a leasehold.

 

[JTip]

...as a utility project will require the home to be moved.

No lease in the scope.

CAN, I can imagine some beat up ol' 70's single wide going for big money in California on a rented lot provided it has an awesome view of the mountains or the great big ocean. You pray for the old couple to pass on so you can score the primo pad and be willing to pay through the nose for the opportunity to walk to your morning surf session.

But around here the existing parks are strategically placed in the worst possible locations, for obvious reasons. Heck, it might not be worth anything more than scrap metal. Runs around $3k+ to move one (with permits) and only your deity knows if that 40 year old box will survive the trip down the road to the next pad.

 

[Howard Klahr]

No lease in the scope.

I guess that is why in order to answer the question appropriately, one has to first read the question. The OP quite clearly stated in their post - " located on a leased pad site"
By definition this then would be a leasehold. Don't focus on the improvements but rather the actual bundle of rights.