Prior Sales History/new Construction

[Howard Klahr]

would you also report all the prior sales of the individual properties before they were assembled?

Yes ...

 

[Ken B]

Then you would need to report two prior sales of the subject property.

I disagree.

A number of years ago, I appraised a property (and we appraise real property, not real estate) which consisted of a lot in a new subdivision. The real property which represented the rights of ownership in the legal entity represented by this lot had not previously sold because this lot did not exist until such time as the plat was recorded.

When I reported no previous sale of the property which was the subject of the assignment, an AMC reviewer called me and asked "had I researched the ownership history to the time of the Indians?" Long story short, I wrote TAF about this and received a reply that affirmed my position that there was no prior sale history of the property which was the subject of my appraisal as it had not previously existed, legally. The reviewer wanted a copy of that email, which I was happy to provide, and I heard nothing else about it.

This is different from the OP's scenario, however. The legal entity which is the subject of the appraisal, in this case, did exist previously. That the physical condition of the real estate associated with that legal entity has changed is irrelevant. The physical condition of real estate may change, at least minutely, daily. In the OP's situation, she is incorrect with regard to her position on the topic.

Edit: That said, I agree with Post 24.

 

[RSW]

I have always reported the prior transfers of the subject property when it was part of a larger parcel transfer. Just because it was not legally defined as the subject property that you are appraising does not mean it was not there as part of a larger parcel. I do the comparable sales the same way.

 

[Howard Klahr]

I disagree.

Obviously you are free to have your own opinion, but my response to Joe's question is about how I would treat the situation.

We can debate what constitutes the subject property adnauseum, and often do. An appraisal report however tells a story. So why is it such a hang up to provide information that could illuminate the circumstances surrounding a particular property. UPSAP is a minimum standard, not a step by instruction manual. I don't take an approach toward report writing of racing to the bottom.but rather to convey information I deem necessary.

 

[CANative]

 

[CANative]

And like Howard I would discuss the transfer of the parent lot from which the site was cut out (if it appeared in the property record).

 

[timd354]

And like Howard I would discuss the transfer of the parent lot from which the site was cut out (if it appeared in the property record).

I would too, but it is certainly not a USPAP requirement to do so.

 

[OSU Beavers]

The only reason not to disclose a prior land sale is if the subject was a newly created lot and the prior sale was for the subdivided parcel.

 

[Tom D]

seeing that it's going 50/50 here i would disclose more info. never know which side the state board will be on.
no, nothing wrong with having a book of, not so clear, rules to die by.

 

[Howard Klahr]

The only reason not to disclose a prior land sale is if the subject was a newly created lot and the prior sale was for the subdivided parcel.

And why is that? History, is history is history. Does the information hinder the report in some way? ... No. Does it impact the value? ... Unknown, if it isn't disclosed how could one know the impact, if any.