Three Comparables in May Pen

I would use all three but not weight them equally. A is superior to the subject: it has about 250 sq ft more gross floor area, an extra bedroom and bathroom, 0.08 acre more land, a double garage, and excellent condition. A downward adjustment is required for those advantages. The adjusted indication is likely in the mid-$20 millions, perhaps around $24.5 million to $25.5 million, but A is less comparable because too many adjustments are needed.

B is inferior in size, garage, and roof condition, but it is closer to the subject in utility and location than A. I would adjust B upward for the smaller floor area, the absence of a garage, and the roof repair cost of about $1.5 million. A rough adjusted indication is around $26 million. B is eight months old, so a modest time adjustment may also be needed if the market has moved, but it carries good weight because the adjustments are fewer and more measurable.

C is similar in size, bedroom count, and garage, but it suffers from the busy main road and has no renovation, while the subject is quiet and renovated. C is also fourteen months old. I would adjust C upward for the inferior location and condition, but the time adjustment is less certain because the market may have changed. C supports a higher range, perhaps $27 million to $28 million, but I would give it less weight than B because of its age and the road influence.

The adjusted indications are not identical, which is normal. A sits around $25 million after downward adjustment; B sits around $26 million after upward adjustment for size, garage, and roof; C suggests a somewhat higher figure but is older and affected by the busy road. The tightest support is therefore in the $25.5 million to $27 million range. I would reconcile to about $26.5 million as market value, with the greatest weight on B and secondary weight on A, while using C as a check on the upper end.

The reconciliation should explain why B is the best comparable: it is closest in utility, the adjustments are relatively direct, and the roof defect can be costed. A is a superior property and requires larger adjustments, so it is less reliable. C is similar in physical layout but the adverse location and the age of the sale reduce its reliability. The final figure should be expressed as a rounded estimate, not a false precision, and should state the effective date, the basis of value, and the assumptions. If the bank requires a single figure, I would report $26.5 million and note a probable range of $25.5 million to $27 million.

Forced-sale value is not the same as market value. It assumes a seller who is under pressure to sell within a shortened marketing period, with limited exposure to the market, and a buyer who knows this. It usually produces a discount from market value, often in the region of 10% to 20%, depending on the property type, liquidity, and local conditions. On a $26.5 million market value, a forced-sale indication might be roughly $22 million to $24 million, but that is a judgment, not a mechanical formula, and it must be clearly labelled and explained.

The main data limitations are the small number of comparables, the lack of verified interior inspections for A and C, the age of C, and the difficulty of supporting a precise time adjustment in a thin market. The roof repair on B is an estimate, not a contractor's final invoice. The appraiser should verify sale prices and terms with the parties or their agents where possible, confirm whether any sale included furniture or special financing, and state the assumptions in the report. The bank should not be given a false impression that the figure is supported by a deep dataset when it is not.