a. Abatement application - Laserfiche WebLink

However, there was no adjustment for effective age, quality, or condition between the two properties made in the appraisal. 76. The value conclusion is not reasonable for all of the reasons listed above. . NARA Residential Review 2002 : Reviewer's Summary Comments An interior and exterior inspection was made of the subject property. Sales history in the area was researched. A review of the mortgage terms, second mortgage, and estimates of repairs were reviewed. Listings of the subject property and all comparables, if listed, were researched_ Review of various government agency's documents relating to this area were researched. Based on my experience in the appraisal business, my education and training in the appraisal field, and my Real Estate experience and training, I believe this is one of the most obvious cases of properties that Appraisers and Realtors are here to protect our clients from. That which mlilY not be evident to the new resident of our area is in fact very well known to those experienced in Real Estate this county. I have included various pictures of the subject property and of the neighborhood. The only other sale noted in this development in the past couple of years occurred at 2712 Gress Ave on 05/02/02 for $40,000 on a contract for Deed. The house appears to be similar, but it has a large garage possibly used for commercial purposes. Because of the C/O, it bears little weight on the marketability or value of the subject property. Other material errors in the appraisal include the lack of disclosure of roof leaks. An experienced Appraiser would suspect long term problems instead of an isolated incident because of the significant damage, the multiple areas of damage, and the present of mold and mildew. The appraisal states that the house is located on a permanent frost free post and pier foundation. Engineers indicate that it is not. My inspection showed concrete blocks placed on large wood or concrete pads, many of which lean one way or the other. The presence of large pads at the ground level indicate a foundation placement commonly used in mobile home parks, not frost free nor considered permanent. Although residences are allowed in Agricultural zoning, the long and very public history of denying building permits would indicate an legal, non-conforming designation. Highest and Best use is questionable and should have been discussed. Estimated remaining economic life is typically included in appraisals. It is conspicuous by its absence. The bottom line is this: The manufactured house has little or no value without the land on which it sits, because of its original age and its dated condition. Mobile home parks would not likely take it, and by the time you update the windows, roof, move it, etc., a new one may be more economically feasible. The land is basically worthless. You can't build on it, you can't even fix your septic system legally if it fails. A high percentage has reverted to the county for taxes, and the few that have been sold privately have been to one buyer, a resident in the junk car business. If the subject suffers a catastrophic loss requiring a building pefmit to fix, history indicates that it will be denied. So, even insured ownership is at a greater risk than most knowledgeable about it would accept. It is my opinion that the errors in the comparable's factual data are too convenient for them to be typographical or clerical mistakes. Together with the lack of disclosure or consideration of the neighborhood or property conditions, this appraisal does not appear to be objective. Further investigation of all circumstances is recommended.