|
<br />· NARA R~sidential Review 2002 : Market Analvsis Section Comments
<br />41: ~ack of s;3les in the neighborhood.
<br />
<br />43: The specific neighborhood and the age of the manufactured home being built before HUD standards took effect on 06/15f76
<br />are marketability issues that needed to be addressed by the use of comparables with the most similar conditions. The factual
<br />information on all comparables have significant errors that effect the reliability and use of the comparables:
<br />A: Comp 1 is presented as selling for $45,500 on a conventional mortgage. According to the owner, it was
<br />purchased for $42,500. There is no recorded mortgage on file.
<br />
<br />,
<br />8. Camp 2 is listed as sold for $56,000 on a conventional mortgage. County recofds show that was purchased
<br />on a Contract for Deed arrangement, reducing\the reliability of this comparable.
<br />
<br />C. Comp 3 is a traditional house stick built on site construction(not manufactured as stated in the appraisal)
<br />built in 1956 (not 1973 like indicated in the appraisal). Double wides were not built in 1956!
<br />
<br />49: The subject's location is clearly inferior t~ all comparables except comp 1, although it has not been treated that way in the
<br />way in the appraisal.
<br />
<br />52: Sitellccation adjustments appear to be adjusted in the wrong direction.
<br />The subject's area is zoned Agricultural, and it is public knowledge that Industrial is the intended planned use. There are no
<br />public sewer or water systems. Building permits for replacement of existing structures have been denied, and upgrades to
<br />septic systems are denied.
<br />The county owns approximately 200 lots by tax forfeiture. There have been several sales of lots for $3,000 each, however they
<br />have been bought by one buyer, a junk dealer. At best, the site as if vacant may be worth $6,000 to that buyer, but if it can't be
<br />built on, but only held until such time as the City of West Fargo, or the County of Cass adopts a new policy, is it marketable at
<br />all? The county holdings indicate that it may not be worth anything due to the cost of holding it.
<br />
<br />So, if the location adjustments to comps 2 and 3 are reversed, it has a double effect on indicated value.
<br />
<br />56: The market data has material errors.
<br />
<br />57: Secondary market financing requires that the manufactured house be newer than 06/15/76. Only short term in house
<br />financing is available. This affects the size of the loan, the term, the interest rate, and the qualifications of the buyer. Age
<br />of the manufactured house is affected by the financing, and therefore needs similar sales to test marketability.
<br />
<br />58. The inability to pfoperly maintain or improve the property has a great effect on marketability that needs to be disclosed
<br />and analyzed. The deterioration of the neighborhood should be disclosed and considered in value and marketing time.
<br />
<br />59. The land value in the cost approach is conveniently valued at $9,000.
<br />
<br />63. Pictures of surrounding properties would illustrate the deterioration of the neighborhood.
<br />
<br />67. The market analysis section does not disclose or analyze the declining nature of the neighborhood.
<br />. NARA Residential Review 2002 : Reconciliation Section Comments
<br />71, Only one comparable from the neighborhood, or any like it. That comparable is mis-reported and under investigated. The
<br />other comparables have important enough errors to be removed from the report. The Cost approach has little or no value due to
<br />the zoning and public policy regarding the neighborhood. Therefore, no conclusion of value or of marketability is proven.
<br />
<br />72. If you correct just the factual errofs that are riot at all subjective, (sales prices, financing, and design and zoning
<br />compliance) then the data does not bracket or sufficiently address the major areas of concern.
<br />
<br />73. The reconciliation states that all comps are manufactured homes (Comp 3 is not) and that comp 1 is selected as estimate
<br />of value.
<br />
<br />The appraiser's source of information for comp 1 is listed as Records. The sales price is listed as $45,500, but
<br />the current owner has stated that it was $42,500. It was reported as conventional financing. Because of the
<br />original age of this house, an appraisal should have identified it as a manufactured house built before 1976.
<br />Therefore, conventional financing may not have been available. There is no recorded mortgage, and the owner
<br />stated that he paid cash. "
<br />
<br />This comparable was inspected before that sale by this review appraiser for the purpose of a proposed sale.
<br />The interior inspection revealed that this house had been totally remodeled. All windows replaced, all walls
<br />gutted, insulated and replaced with drfWall, drywalled ceilings, newer w90dwork, doors, plumbing, wiring,
<br />flooring, kitchen cabinets, bath fixtures. The interior was like a 10 year old house. However, enough of the
<br />exterior style remained to identify it as a manufactured house, and an inspection of the crawl space showed
<br />that it did have the steel girders typical of a manufactured house.
<br />
<br />Other than its leaking metal roof, its shifting foundation, and various other problems as a result of those defects,
<br />the subject has been adequately maintained over the years. The panelling and doors are in good shape
<br />considering their age and the quality of the materials. However, no updating or substantial improvements have
<br />been made since its original placement. Windows are low cost and original, the ceiling is stained and bowed,
<br />the bath and kitchen are verj dated, the interior walls are 2", and the flooring is oldef. The house is nearing its
<br />l'".nrYl~ir.ir1rl JP,r'"n("'\mir lif;l ~nn thp r.n~t in r.IJrp m;:lV P.:)(r..~Arl its V;::dI1A.
<br />
|