Parcel size greater than 5 acres

[Michigan CG]

Someone sitting in some office cannot determine what is excess and what is surplus land for all properties.

Send the requirements to someone in your state who can call these bozos and set them straight.

 

[Webbed Feet]

That requires Hypothetical Conditions

Bamba,

I may not agree with every point being made by every poster so far. But I think all of us so far agree this is a big stinking problem and issue. If I were to receive such blanket engagement parameters from a mortgage source I would immediately forward it to my state appraisal board. There are a host of problems.

A) For warm ups here, even if such an assignment was for a private party with a legitmate intended use, the assignment would be "Complex" per any and all USPAP definitions of it. That would mean any and all "Licensed" appraisers would need a wake up call that if the T.V. was over $250,000 they would all be out of scope of practice. At least they would in my state.

B) Even if this was allowable for all mortgage assignments (which it is not) it certainly would NOT be allowable for every specific subject property there is. Part of the reason every assignment type like this is "Complex" is directly due to the fact that it simply is not possible to do, without gross USPAP violations, regarding every piece of real estate under the sun. Some of them it is literally impossible to develop "Five Acres" with all the required improvements on them including public street access for ingress and egress. At that point, if that cannot be done, the appraiser just opined on a runealizable (completely impossible) hypothetical and the results are not credible in any stretch of the imagination for any intended use.

C) Mortgage intended use with the 03/2005 Fannie forms required. I am not going to post on all the reasons why that with a intended use of a mortgage and a requirement to use the SOW on the 03/2005 Fannie forms that Citizens is requiring an unacceptable assignment condition, in my opinion. The problem is all appraisers in this country should know that it is probably an unacceptable assignment condition per their state appraisal board, and apparently, some don't.

On a side note just to weird out some other posters. For every intended use imaginable would a real estate appraiser have to have a site survey of a hypothetical five acres and a provided hypothetical legal description of something that doesn't exist? ... Answer: No ... But that debate is for a different thread. The main point of this thread is, without so far knowing what the Citizen intended use and demanded SOW including required reporting format (you didn't really tell us), the assumption they are requiring option "C" above is very strong and a expectation that a great many uneducated appraisers will be violating USPAP is highly likely.

P.S. Any appraiser that fails to understand that such requirements are asking for multiple real estate appraisals based on multiple HC's is completely messed up from the very git go! ... That second half of the so-called "excess land" has now hypothetically just been turned into it's own separate parcel causing a new hypothetical H&BU and "value" that the dear sweet client has not bothered to define.

 

[Bamba]

As always, I knew I can get some good opinions. That's exactly how I feel about it and I was a little shock to see these requirements for orders that came from Citizens in 2009.

Intended use of a mortgage, reporting format Fannie forms...specifically the last assignment that came was for a drive-by Subject is 25.33 acres, up on a very steep mountain with only 34 feet road frontage (exactly the driveway opening). Told the client no can do

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Bamba .. it looks like you have a Homesite regardless of what the acreage of the property is. Perhaps if you explained it like this and determined your land value from similar Homesites the lender would not have an issue with acreage.
I will add, your inspection of the "site" might be a bit interesting.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Thomas is right on. Your job is to value the property based on the market, not some formula concocted by the lending division. If you accept the guidelines, they would have to be in the SOW, and a disclaimer should be put in that these guidelines are in violation of USPAP and generally accepted appraisal practices, as well as Fannie/Freddie guidlines (that'll get their attention).

<.....snip.......>

Restrain, I appreciate what you meant. But what caught my eye, versus PE's, is I think trying to use a disclaimer like that would be like a 40 year old man telling a judge that when he had sex with a 15 year old girl he did in fact stop and ask her when her 18th birthday was going to be before he had sex with her.