Borrower:
File No.: Case No.:
230803
Property Address:
17220 Limberlost Road
City:
State:
Zip:
Three Rivers
MI
49093
Lender:
John Bippus
SUBJECT SECTION No additional comments
CONTRACT SECTION No additional comments
NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION No additional comments
SITE SECTION No additional comments
IMPROVEMENTS SECTION No additional comments
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH SECTION The search for comparables was limited to properties in the Three Rivers School District with condition and general appeal similar to the subject property. Properties were selected specifically with bracketing in mind. That being that some of the comparables are clearly inferior to the subject while some are clearly superior. Age adjustments are not warranted as typical buyers in the area value condition (tied closely to effective age) over chronological age. The five sales comparables illustrated are considered the most recent and proximate available with general appeal similar to the subject. Adjustments for amenities are only applied when a difference exists which influences value. When a comparable has an inferior amenity, a positive adjustment is applied. Comparable #1, for example, has an inferior site (value). The logic is that the subject is superior in this category and therefor a positive adjustment is warranted. This results in the adjusted sale price at the bottom of the grid being an indication of value for the subject as opposed to the actual sales price of the comparable. Comparable #1, as stated, has an inferior site. The site is located on the ninety degree bend in a road and privacy of the site is compromised. A site value adjustment was made accordingly. Comparables #2 and #3 are both older sales included due to the favorable quantity of adjustments required. Both are considered to be inferior to the subject from an overall perspective. Comparable #4, previously inspected by the appraiser, is included due to the similarity in setting. Comparable #5 is considered to be clearly superior to the subject. This being due to the acreage, basement finish and the pole barn. RECONCILIATION As stated, bracketing was utilized in order to establish parameters on value. The combination of quantity of adjustments and bracketing ability of comparables #3 and #5 carried most weight in the market value opinion. It should be noted that there are no active listings in the area similar to the subject while demand continues to be strong. As a result, the market value opinion should be considered a minimum figure for the subject property. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS In some instances comparable photographs have been used from previous appraisal files. In those instances where the appraiser did not recently take the comparable photograph, an external inspection of the comparable was made from a public street (when possible) to verify the accuracy of the mls listing. Also note that digital photography is used and photographs that are taken by the appraiser are saved for later use sometimes resulting in seasonal differences. In all cases, Lender/Client is aware that the appraiser has used his best judgement when visually inspecting comparable sales and listings when pictures may result in threatening conditions. The neighborhood data on page one of the GPAR includes all property types, not just those similar to the subject. The comparables selected are the most similar available with amenities similar to the subject, consequently the marketing times may vary from the predominant times in the neighborhood comments. Likewise, the market value of the subject may fall outside the predominant value in the neighborhood. Should the subject be over or under-improved for the area, this is discussed in the depreciation comments. If no comments exist then it is concluded that the subject is neither over or under-improved for the area. Adjustment values of zero in the sales comparison grid indicate that the appraiser considered an adjustment. However, after consideration, it was determined that the difference was so minimal that it is not recognized by the market. Therefore no adjustment was made. The subject property is located within 25 miles from my office. Proximity is not considered proof of geographic competency. This assignment requires geographic competency as part of the scope of work. I have spent sufficient time in the subjects market and understand the nuances of the local market and the supply and demand factors relating to the specific property type and the location involved. Such understanding will not be imparted solely from a consideration of specific data such as demographics, costs, sales and rentals. The necessary understanding of local market conditions provides the bridge between a sale and a comparable sale or a rental and a comparable rental. It is imperative that the reader of this report understand that the appraiser is not a home inspector. The appraiser has inspected the property for purposes of establishing the market value. Unless otherwise noted, mechanical systems are assumed to be in working order. Some mechanical systems (radon removal systems, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, etc.) may be a code requirement. The appraiser is not a code inspector. Should the market value be influenced by the presence or absence of such systems, it is indicated in this report.
Appraiser:
Supervisory Appraiser:
Name:
Name:
Additional Text Addendum
Produced using ACI software, 800.234.8727 www.aciweb.com
TXT4 01282013
C:\Program Files (x86)\ACI32\REPORTS\17220 Limberlost Road.aci
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker