The subject is a two story colonial built in 1988 in the East Creek subdivision of Vienna. It is Good + 10 grade home with 2958 sq. ft. in above grade living area, sited on a 0.2329 acre lot.
The appellant filed based on fair market value, submitting a letter intended to show the subject’s subdivision is overvalued based on the higher Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR). The appellant noted that the subject’s subdivision was assessed at higher ASR (111.6%) compared to the Ayr Hill subdivision which was valued at lower ASR of 89.6%. Moreover, the appellant argued, while homes in the subject’s subdivision are assessed on average at $298 per sq. ft., homes in the Avis Court development are assessed at a lower rate of $262 per sq. ft.
It is noted that this property was appealed for the 2014 tax year, citing the same reason listed in the current appeal in which an adjustment was made to the assessed value of the subject based on change in grade. The change made in the 2014 is still considered as a part of the current year’s assessment. From the DTA archives, the reviewing appraiser assembled with this repot a copy of the spreadsheet used by the owner in 2014 appeal, as the figures presented above are based on the same spreadsheet.
…show more content…
The owner confirmed that the wall damage due to water leak which was noted in the appeal is now repaired. However, the owner is concerned about the wallpaper beginning to peel in two places on the right side of the entrance, which the owner believes has happened gradually as a result of water seeping from the exterior. In addition, the owner showed some cracks in different locations (see attached pictures). There is no visible water damage to the walls and it is the opinion of the reviewing appraiser that these concerns are minor and may represent normal wear and tear for the house of the subject’s
Richard Romano is one of the three principals at Cruickshank, Gath, & Romano. With eight years of experience and recognized by industry insiders as one of Canada's leading real estate experts, Richard wants to complete the appraisal according to his best estimate of the pro...
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
A single family home located at the corner of Hammond Street and Marengo Avenue. On the Hammond Street side, the house has a wooden fence along the north side of the property.
Case name: Peter K. Dementas v The Estate of Jack Tallas, 764 P.2d 628 (1988)
Habitat for Humanity homeownership is income based; therefore, any future property tax assessments should c...
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
The defendant (Dorris Reed) bought a house from the plaintiff (Robert King) and the house was the place of a murder that happened 10 years before. Reed nor the real-estate agent had no knowledge of this murder and Reed discovered the facts of the murder from a neighbor after the sale happened. King was well aware of the murder and recognized that it would impact the home’s market value when it was up for sale. Reed gave $76,000 for the home, although it was worth $65,000 due to the murder. Reed sued King along with the real estate for rescission and damages.
United States v. 50 Acres of Land was a court case between a public committee and the United States government. As a result of a flood control project, the United States government condemned 50 acres of land that was being used as a landfill. The dispute was over whether the government needed to provide more money for the 50 acres of land. The court had only provided compensation based on the current market value of the property instead of an amount that would have allowed the city to construct a larger, replacement facility. The Supreme Court upheld the court’s ruling that the normal market value was just compensation in a unanimous 9-0 ruling.
Hastings County, Social Housing, “Boxed In” April 2005 (pg. 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 108) Local Sources (pg. 110-114) Retrieved from: http://www.hastingscounty.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115&Itemid=88
The use of wallpaper in this passage paints a picture of a room that is very dirty and unkempt. The fact that the paper is peeling off the walls is a sign of long put-off maintenance. Not only is the paper in tatters, the furniture inside the room is also in shambles: “A big clumsy sofa occupied almost the whole of one wall
Since the property was a dilapidated building in a bad location and had been vacant for a number of years, Daniel estimated the value to be $1.9 million. less than what the Sub valued it at. Daniel spoke with the managers of the Sub about writing. down the value of the property by what he had estimated, and they refused. Daniel decided to submit his analysis with a “subject-to-opinion” designation since he and the client had a difference of opinion.
To conclude, I would advise Brad and Chardonnay to exercise their right to claim damages from the surveyor as they have a strong case, based upon the relevant cases, evidence and legislation explained within this essay.
Each step of the appraisal process involves an unknown amount of estimation error. The combination of these errors is unlikely to produce a perfect, error-free estimate of value. Thus, appraisal error is virtually unavoidable. Investors need reasonable estimates of value when buying, selling, or retaining commercial property, so an unknown amount of appraisal error adds uncertainty to the decision-making process. Despite the uncertainty, investors have learned to make allowances for appraisal error in their decision-making processes. The way in which real estate investors interpret appraisal errors has a material effect upon the decisions that they make. In particular, the predominant belief among real estate professionals is that appraisal error is random. This belief materially influences investor attitudes toward portfolio management and the valuation process itself. Lack of understanding of the relative magnitudes of random and nonrandom components of total appraisal error has consequences for optimal portfolio strategies. For example, investors who deem the bulk of total appraisal error to be random may reasonably conclude that error in estimates is beyond their control or influence. To minimize total portfolio valuation error, such investors may assemble large, diverse portfolios even though the cost of owning an array of properties of various types and in various locations is expensive. On the other hand, if the bulk of total appraisal error is nonrandom, investors would do better to pay attention to improving value estimates on each property rather than hoping that the errors in values of a large pool of properties will offset one another. In particular, investors should institute valuation controls and procedures to minimize the errors in each valuation of individual portfolio assets. Such controls might include obtaining multiple simultaneous estimates, changing appraisers for each periodic revaluation, or increasing the frequency of valuations. This conclusion becomes particularly significant in light of studies like Miles that determine that the typical magnitude of total appraisal error is about ten percent of appraised value. Information in three recent empirical studies provides evidence that previous appraisal research has been mistaken in assuming most appraisal error to be random. The demonstration that most appraisal error is nonrandom should encourage real estate investors to focus additional attention on individual asset selection and valuation at the expense of portfolio assembly.
Real estate investments and transactions represent a major part of people’s wealth. The average American has about one-third of their net worth tied to real estate market and when considering the size and scale of the market, real estate can be an attractive and lucrative market for any looking to invest. The real estate market can be volatile, ever changing and unpredictable. However, fundamental knowledge and a basic understanding of the factors that influence changes in the market; may help to see market trends as well as navigate through real estate cycles.
Valuation of real estates or properties basically, refers to appraising a property or a real estate to form an opinion about the value of the property. This value is normally the properties’ market value. Properties are heterogeneous in nature; meaning they are not all identical or alike and thus, they have different values. However, it is possible to get a range for the values. There are some obvious factors like physical location of a property that automatically makes the market value of different properties differ. The materials used on a property and other features also contribute to making property differ in their value. Other factors such as the physical size of a property still determine a property’s market value (Histon Fine Homes, 2008