New MH on owner's site

[Zoe]

Not trying to be rude but did you read my post or someone else's? Both lots? What?

I think I did get you confused on another site where a small cottage stick built was on one site and the adjoining site was in question on H&B use issue.

 

[Zoe]

It is my opinion that the contract section is left blank because it technically is not a sale. It is new construction. For years I have submitted the reports without the contract section filled out and noted the terms of the agreement in an addenda. On recent report the reviewer is insisting I include the construction agreement in the contract section as if it is a purchase. I am interested in your thoughts. I can't believe I am wrong and twenty years of reports have been accepted as submitted, many to this same lender. Thoughts?

I can see your problem now. The owner already owns the lot and is contracting with a builder to build the house. I don't see where contract information should be included. Much more information should be included but the owner already owns the lot. They are not buying the subject. This is not a sales contract. This is a building contract between the owner and the builder.

You can get in trouble commingling things like that. Your appraisal is going to be subject to. Your right imho.

 

[Zoe]

Even if the owner is the builder, it is still not a sales contract. Don't belong in that section. You can't buy something you already own.

 

[Zoe]

Many manufactured home dealers will do the whole nine yards for the owner of the land if they go to them for the purchase. The owner buys manufactured home from the dealer, the dealer delivers the manufactured home to the site and sets up everything to FHA standards.

That specific contract is between the owner of the lot and whoever is selling them the manufactured home and/or setting it up for them.

That contract is not supposed to be in the sales contract section if the owner already owns the lot. The owner can't buy the subject lot from whoever under God's green earth.

Okay, let me make it clear. The owner already owns the lot. The subject property described in contract section includes the subject lot and real property improvements along with other things like concessions, etc. You see how it could get you in trouble commingling those items for the owner and the lender in the sales contract section.

You are doing subject to anyway most likely. If they want "as is" you can appraise the subject lot separately. They don't belong in the same section.

See? Not an easy assignment.

 

[Zoe]

The lender may be wanting an easy way out and you pay the price. You'll know next time.

 

[Zoe]

Look at it this way. The marketing times and other real property rights related to the subject could be different in MV opinion with subject lot sold as vacant vs improved.

You will have to arrive at value opinion of subject lot as is AND as improved anyway on this assignment.

You can just tell them you are not putting it in contract section. Let them find somebody else.

I can be very obtuse sometimes.

MV requires H&B use analysis.

I knew your situation had a H&B use problem going with it because I can almost guarantee you are doing MV appraisal of the subject.

I'll throw you a curve. What if H&B use is not the proposed improvements?

 

[mp2277]

I think I did get you confused on another site where a small cottage stick built was on one site and the adjoining site was in question on H&B use issue.

I certainly am not one to fault anyone for getting confused. While we are on this subject though I recently had an issue where there was a proposed new DW on two fifteen acre tracts. They were deeded together but had different parcel numbers. I submitted it with thirty acres. The lender requested that I separate them and use only fifteen acres. I felt they should have requested that upfront, however I told them the only way I could do that was subject to separating the deed. Do you think I was correct? Thanks

 

[TerryRohrer]

I certainly am not one to fault anyone for getting confused. While we are on this subject though I recently had an issue where there was a proposed new DW on two fifteen acre tracts. They were deeded together but had different parcel numbers. I submitted it with thirty acres. The lender requested that I separate them and use only fifteen acres. I felt they should have requested that upfront, however I told them the only way I could do that was subject to separating the deed. Do you think I was correct? Thanks

A deed does not create, modify, or in anyway alter a legal description. It doesn't matter if one or a thousands tracts are included on a single deed...each tract has a unique legal description created by the survey that originally defined it. Much like a dozens eggs in the same carton are still 12 individual eggs.

 

[Zoe]

I certainly am not one to fault anyone for getting confused. While we are on this subject though I recently had an issue where there was a proposed new DW on two fifteen acre tracts. They were deeded together but had different parcel numbers. I submitted it with thirty acres. The lender requested that I separate them and use only fifteen acres. I felt they should have requested that upfront, however I told them the only way I could do that was subject to separating the deed. Do you think I was correct? Thanks

That is a little different because you have to know the real property rights you are appraising.

I think you are right there also. If your client wanted to lose a mortgage on 15 acres and the property owner was fine with it, then that is okay.

You are still using H&B use in your analysis. I think 15 acres could have very well been H&B use for the DW.

I won't swear to that. If I were property owner and lender told me as the appaiser we don't want all 30 acres then I would be fine with just doing the 15 acres on the subject property.

I would have wanted a revision request. You should have ironed that out with lender on the front end with it being two separate parcels.

My revision would not have been free if lender did not spell that out to me on front end. I don't know how much time you already spent but I would not do it for free if lender had not spelled it out to me.

 

[sputnam]

It is my opinion that the contract section is left blank because it technically is not a sale. It is new construction. For years I have submitted the reports without the contract section filled out and noted the terms of the agreement in an addenda. On recent report the reviewer is insisting I include the construction agreement in the contract section as if it is a purchase. I am interested in your thoughts. I can't believe I am wrong and twenty years of reports have been accepted as submitted, many to this same lender. Thoughts?

I can't speak for any other reviewer. If your report landed on my desk here's how I would view the issue you raised. If you put the comments about the construction contract in the contract section of the form... and you got it right... the appraisal would pass. If you put the comments about the construction contract elsewhere in the report... and you got it right... the appraisal would pass. If you didn't comment on the construction contract, you would get a revision request.