For example, what if the seller offered the property for sale as a FSBO? True, there was no exposure via the local MLS, but why does a property need to be offered for sale via the MLS just to qualify as having been “…offered for sale on the open market…”? Next, where is it written that a tenant-purchase of a duplex cannot/does not meet the requirements of an arm’s-length transaction? Why assume that merely because the tenant is the contract grantee, the parties to the contract reached that sales price by other than free and open negotiations?įrom the seller’s standpoint, in this scenario, is there any evidence the seller is under any undue influence to sell the property (to anybody, including the tenant)? So, if there is no undue influence to sell, as well as no undue influence to buy, and the parties arrived at the contract price via free and open negotiations, what is not arm’s-length about this transaction? Without reading any more into this scenario, nor reading anything out of it, I see this transaction as arm’s-length for these reasons. In all candor, however, I can’t say this question would be so cut-and-dried to me now. Therefore, based on this analysis, at one time I would have concluded this was NOT an arm’s-length transaction. Further, the tenant as the contract-grantee might have had some “sentimental” reasons to purchase the property (although I can’t imagine about how anybody could get sentimental about a duplex property), thus may have other-than-market motivations to purchase. Let’s assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that some analysis on your part reveals that this property was never offered for sale via the local MLS. With those data only, how do you conclude if this is an arm’s-length transaction? Your client gives you a copy of the tenant’s current lease, as well as a copy of the signed and executory purchase and sales agreement. Now, consider a situation in which a tenant in a duplex is the contract grantee. Yet, both of them call for the appraiser to use only arm’s-length transactions as comparable sales (which is what the definition of market value assumes). Surprisingly, USPAP does not define the term arm’s-length transaction. However, was that correct? Let’s go to USPAP to see what it says. This is how this concept was taught to me when I took my original appraisal classes, oh so long ago. In other words, it was a typical market transaction. I thought such a transaction was one where the buyer and seller were traditionally motivated there was no coercion, no bias no relationship between the parties. Are we truly aware of its definition and its application? How often do we appraisers get into the mode where we think we know it all? Occasionally, do we need to step back and look at the way we do things, just to make sure we are not missing something? Is what we know to be true and correct really true and correct? I raise this issue relative to the concept of what an arm’s-length transaction is. Yet, both of them call for the appraiser to use only arm’s-length transactions as comparable sales… USPAP does not define the term arm’s-length transaction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |