Värdering av tomtmark med hus på ofri grund vid klyvning

Sammanfattning: The objective of this work is to examine the impact on value that a house on leasehold has on the underlying land in a partition ordinance. In order to build a foundation and create an understanding about houses on leasehold, partitiontools and different methods of valuation I undertook literature studies. The literature consisted of, among other things, preparatory work for FBL and the Court of Appeal judgment V98:21. Stage two of the project was to investigate how the Swedish authority for mapping, cadastral and land registration have handled valuation of partitions where house on leasehold occurred. With the help from Lantmäteriets Arkivsök service, which gave access to completed ordinance acts from all over Sweden, I could collect data over partitions where this problem had been tried. Based on analysis of the learned theory and the result from searching the archives, I classified the valuations in partition ordinaces with houses on leasehold into three different scenarios. • Scenario one: Houses on leasehold turns into property fixture by partitioning. • Scenario two: House on leasehold granted thru residential ground lease remains personal property after partitioning. • Scenario three: House on leasehold granted thru joint ownership agreement remains personal property after partitioning. My conclusion is that the impact on value on the underlying land of the house on leasehold differ depending on what scenarios that ordinance treats. In scenario one, the valuer should value the land as if it is undeveloped and thus no reduction of the underlying land value. In scenario two, where residential ground leases exists, the valuer should primarily look for comparable objects, that is to see how the prices on residential ground leases are different from undeveloped sites in the area. In cases where there are few or no comparable objects it can be appropriate to reduce land value by 30 percent. In the third scenario, land value depends on how a joint ownership agreement stands out against a third party. When I failed to find out that I have assumed that it can be compared to a usage right and if so required a greater reduction in land value, up to 50-80 percent.