• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

PUD or Not PUD? Does anyone really know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 130081
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fcrecords said:
I think you all missed my point (except maybe for cjski), but thanks anyways, I truly appreciate your time and feedback.

I am questioning the wording of the Fannie Mae definition of a PUD per the Sellers Guide. The definition uses the word "consists". Why would they use that word? Why not "contains" or "includes". Read literally, I interpret that to mean the entire subdivision or project within the context of the sentence and the context of the other definitions of Condos and Co-ops. (I think my lender is reading it that way too.) For instance, the Condo definition talks about owning title to the unit and in addition owning an undivided interest in the common, why is the PUD definition not worded in the same manner? Is this a mistake or did they mean to write it that way?

My question is does anyone really know for sure and if you do, what is your source?
Click to expand...

this link also has some source material referenced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Unit_Development
 
The answer to the question is a very simple yes or no regardless of words used.

Is there a mandatory fee that will create a lien?

If the answer is yes, the PUD box is marked at the top of the form.

If the answer is no, do not mark the PUD box at the top of the form.
 
fcrecords said:
I think you all missed my point (except maybe for cjski), but thanks anyways, I truly appreciate your time and feedback.

I am questioning the wording of the Fannie Mae definition of a PUD per the Sellers Guide. The definition uses the word "consists". Why would they use that word? Why not "contains" or "includes". Read literally, I interpret that to mean the entire subdivision or project within the context of the sentence and the context of the other definitions of Condos and Co-ops. (I think my lender is reading it that way too.) For instance, the Condo definition talks about owning title to the unit and in addition owning an undivided interest in the common, why is the PUD definition not worded in the same manner? Is this a mistake or did they mean to write it that way?

My question is does anyone really know for sure and if you do, what is your source?
Click to expand...


You note there is a distinct difference between the definitions in that under Condo ownership the Condo Owner holds an undivided interest in the common areas. I do not see that included in the PUD definition and one can surmise there is not an undivided ownership of the common areas held by owners of the individual properties within a PUD. Obviously ownership interests in the individual properties (condo vs PUD) are different and it appears to me all of the land of the Condo is owned by the Condo Owners in a fractional interest while the PUD owners hold 100% owenrship of their residence and underlying land but may hold no fractional interest in the common areas. I believe the common areas would be held in fee by the homeowners association with maintenance paid for by dues collected from the homeowners.

The difference may well be intentional based upon legal ownership of the common features.

Im not an attorney thus I dont know the answer but a call to a few Homeowners Associations regarding PUD common areas should result in an answer.
 
as my parcel has ownership of their parcel and an undivided interest in other parcels, not a shared ownership of all by the homeowner association, etc
Click to expand...

Taking the quoted material as fact, the property is definitely not a condo:)

Of course, I am assuming the definition Parcel = Land.

All of the land would be owned in common if it were a condo, unless the rules changed while I was sleeping.
 
"Consists" means 'contains'

Or in the desk dictionary I have it says "to be made up or constituted with of"

This is not to be confused with the definition of "is"
 
Mentor said:
Taking the quoted material as fact, the property is definitely not a condo:)

Of course, I am assuming the definition Parcel = Land.

All of the land would be owned in common if it were a condo, unless the rules changed while I was sleeping.
Click to expand...

Not always true. A condo is a form of ownership. In some cases, and many cases in my market we have condo's where the unit owners own the land on which their property sits. We have at least a dozen variations of that in a 30 mile radius. Some rules are ever changing whether you sleep or not.
 
PropertyEconomics said:
You note there is a distinct difference between the definitions in that under Condo ownership the Condo Owner holds an undivided interest in the common areas. I do not see that included in the PUD definition and one can surmise there is not an undivided ownership of the common areas held by owners of the individual properties within a PUD. Obviously ownership interests in the individual properties (condo vs PUD) are different and it appears to me all of the land of the Condo is owned by the Condo Owners in a fractional interest while the PUD owners hold 100% owenrship of their residence and underlying land but may hold no fractional interest in the common areas. I believe the common areas would be held in fee by the homeowners association with maintenance paid for by dues collected from the homeowners.

The difference may well be intentional based upon legal ownership of the common features.

Im not an attorney thus I dont know the answer but a call to a few Homeowners Associations regarding PUD common areas should result in an answer.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but have different experience on the last point about PUDs. The owners of individual properties in a PUD do take ownership to a particularly described piece of real property with a physical location that can be described as a lot, a parcel or by metes and bounds. In my experience, if the property is located in a PUD, there are common elements of some sort for which the HOA fee is collected: those common elements may be as insignificant as a subdivision entrance and sign, or a detention basin, or a tot lot, or the grass medians in a street. Those common elements will be described in the recorded documents establishing the HOA and/or in the recorded bylaws of the HOA. Again, IME, the conveyance an undivided fractional interest in the common area(s) are set out in the deed.
 
I run into this frequently...per the homeowner, there is an H.O.A. fee, but assessor and zoning information only shows subject as "residential." If the zoning map and/or assessor information does not specifically say PUD (or variation thereof) I do not check the box and explain in addendum.
 
Last edited:
Zoning has absolutely nothing to do with checking or not checking the PUD box at the top of the form. That section is asking about private restrictions, if there is a mandatory home owner's association fee then the box has to be checked because that could become a lien against the property.

Zoning (and only zoning-no private restrictions) is reported in the site section of the form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top