David R.
I've never tried to quantify or even research a difference for a former "celebrity owned" house. My feeling is that it can go both ways. Anecdotes?
OJ Simpsons house. Not a situation to increase the value. Buyer tore it down, although I don't think any agent would have called it a "teardown" if it wasn't for the infamy. Same thing with that "Heavens Gate" cult, remember those looneys? :lol:
A teardown.
Other homes are advertised as formerly owned by "celebrity" in the generic, sometimes they give the name. Maybe an old movie star from wayback, or someone newer from TV. I have my doubts this makes a measurable difference to the value. Maybe for someone with more $$$ than sense.
I personally appraised a house sold by "Slash" of Guns and Roses, in Sherman Oaks hills (He had already moved out). Lots of black tile as I recall, and major storage built in for CD's in the LR. This house did not appear to sell for any premium because he owned it. But, there are bigger stars out there.
LA Times reported a while back that Wilt Chamberlain's house was on the market but not drawing as much interest as might be expected. Seems it had some unusual features, special padded sex room or some such. Bottom line, people didn't like it, too personalized. so maybeeee, who cares who it belonged to??
What about things like Madonnas house. Supposedly used by a big name gangster in the 20's as a speakeasy. Redone to her (unusual) tastes (I've read). How much is it worth to be able to say So and So lived here? If you're in that price range especially? you might be more famous or have more money! :mrgreen:
So, probably too much said, but I have never and probably would not make adjustment for that sort of thing. It would be interesting to see what support you could make for such an adjustment though. :lol:
Ain't this bidness fun. :lol: