Laurie A. Ortolano Trust v. City of Nashua
Docket Nos.: 29472-18PT/29699-19PT
Page 9 of 18
When questioned regarding his use of the’2014 sale as a comparable, Mr. Gardner cited
“USPAP” (the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice), and explained that he was
required to do so. [he board finds merit in the Taxpayer’s criticisms of his reasoning.» USPAP
Standards Rule 1-5 requires appraisers to “analyze all sales of the subject property that occurred
within the three (3) years prior to the effective date of the appraisal.” Additionally, The
Appraisal Foundation publishes advisory opinions (“AO”s) regarding specific USPAP
requirements, and AOQ-1 relates to the sales history of a property. It states:
The requirement for the appraiser to analyze and report sales history and related
information 1s fundamental to the appraisal process. Just as the appraiser must analyze
the details of pending and recent sales of comparable properties, the appraiser must also
take into account the various factors associated with all pending and recent sales of the
subject property itself. This is not to say that the agreed price in a pending or recent sale
of the subject property is necessarily representative of value as defined in the report, but
the appraiser’s failure to analyze and report these facts may exclude important
information from the sales comparison approach.
USPAP does not require, however, that an appraiser must, or even should, utilize a prior’sale as a
comparable sale, especially in this instance when the sale occurred four years prior to the:date.ofi
thé 2018 appeal and where there is ample, much more recent sales available to develop a credible
opinion.of market value.
In addition, Mr. Gardner used the sale of 51 Berkeley Street in both of the 2018.and.2019
appraisals. According to his own reports, this property contains more than double the grogs
living area of the Property (6,067 square feet compared to 3,016 square feet) on a-much larger lot
(2.14 acres compared to.15,000 square feet ) and it sold in June; 2017 for $1,150,000) This sale
price is 59% higher than the sale price of any other comparable sale utilized by either appraiser
or by KRT. In light of these substantial differences, Mr. Gardner’s testimony regarding the
reasons why he selected this property as a sale comparable was not credible.
