Value attributed to pool

[Mr Rex]

. There's a reason Fannie's new forms require you to list any value given to personal property... because they don't want to loan on it.

Seems you make quite a leap from the Fannie bold to the above.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Do you always have to be right? :icon_question:

Occasionally.

 

[Brad Ellis]

Guys,

Steve Owen has this right with his first response- it depends upon the market.

What I see regularly are adjustments of $10-15K in CA markets. The reality is that in many of these markets the pools DO add a ton of value as can be demonstrated thru paired sales analysis- but there is nothing automatic, even in the sun belt.

If you do your market analysis you will see it- if not you are simply guessing and that happens far too often for my tastes.

Brad

 

[Steve Owen]

Seems you make quite a leap from the Fannie bold to the above.

That's no jump at all. If the form you sign says real property and there is something else, such as personal property, in your value opinion, not clarifying that would be a Standard 1 violation - misleading. (Okay, I could have worded it better. Which do you want, correct semantics or correct answers?)

 

[Dale Smalley]

I have to agree with Brad. Here the adjustments are on a neighborhood basis. For some it is just too much of a burden to maintain. I have always had a pool and the best investment is to get a pool service for $100 a month. The pool is always clean and clear now that I have been fired from that job.

 

[Mr Rex]

That's no jump at all. If the form you sign says real property and there is something else, such as personal property, in your value opinion, not clarifying that would be a Standard 1 violation - misleading. (Okay, I could have worded it better. Which do you want, correct semantics or correct answers?)

Maybe semantics, but just struck me as typical Appriaser gospel, but not in writing anywhere. From the bold on Fannies form (as you point out) it says market value... of the real property.... I think you have it a little twisted. Fannie says value the Real, not to value the Real + personal and list the personal you valued along with the real. So, I disagree that yours was the correct answer.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

Item #10 of my standard additional comments on Pg 3 of the 1004 says:

* No consideration is given in the report for the contributory value of any of the following: personal property, mineral rights or standing timber, if any.

That means if the property has a ski boat and dock included in the sales price or a house full of furniture of a big stand of white pine or 3 producing gas wells, these are not considered in my opinion of value. Keep the personal property and the crops and mineral rights out of the mix.

 

[Mr Rex]

Richard, I have a similar statment in my reports as well. Since the form clearly says Real Property, I think including any personal property in the opinion of value is a violation of USPAP. SR 1-2 does not supercede Fannies Supplemental Standards.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

I tend to agree. IMNSHO, you can include personal property (furnishings etc.) if they are normal and customary in the market but lenders hate to loan 30 years on carpeting. I've solved the problem by just not considering it. There have been a few deals go down the tubes. The best one I remember was about 1 years ago when a house on a small lake sold for $100,000. When we finally got people to tell use about the deal (pre-mandatory PA days) we found out that the furniture, dock, pontoon boat and motor boat was included in the deal. Buyer was trying to finance it all. We came in somewhere about $83,000. Boy did it hit the fan on that one.

 

[Mr Rex]

Pontoon boats, jet skis and golf carts are fairly common here. Just don't give them any value. RE agents are starting to understand, "Bank no likey 30 year mortgage on 5 year old jet ski or golf cart".:new_all_coholic: