Many here have seen me mention selling out and moving back West and this is the year it will happen and I'm very close to putting the place on the market now.

It's 41.4 acres of rural land, with a home and everything a working farm needs.
A family member owns 41.4 acres immediately to my South, completely undeveloped, mostly woods, but it is fenced. Electricity is available within 30 of her gate. She has it on the market now (3 days on the market)

I am close enough to being ready to go that I considered putting mine up at the same time, in case a buyer wanted a larger parcel, but since mine is developed, I didn't want to siphon any prospective buyers from her. She is in a hurry to sell because she is older than I am, and wants to get all her 'stuff' in order, converting to cash instead of something unexpectedly happening and her 2 kids having to deal with it. Cash is easy to distribute to heirs. Land, not so much. Some of her's is partially cleared where as 98% of mine is all clear.
Her's:

part of mine:

.

As I see it, someone buying all 82.8 acres might also lower the proceeds of one or the other of both properties, and, it would somewhat limit the pool of prospective buyers, as they would need to borrow more assuming they weren't a cash buyer. (neither of us are willing to do owner finance) . IMO, she has it priced about $40K too low. $6,000/acre.
On the other hand, just 41 acres limits what sort of enterprise can be done with the property. I've been able to do a cow/calf operation here, but I also leased another 65 acres to supplement my grass. I didn't always use it all but it was there if I needed it. I have an option on another 1.4 ac to lease but I haven't used it because I would need to build more cross fences, which is all moot, since I'm moving too.

So anyway, which is the better option for both parties?
1. Putting both properties up at the same time frame?
2. Letting her's sell 1st hoping she gets the most possible?

All of it, is in the 500 yr flood plain, but some of hers did not get flooded in the flood of record Harvey 2017.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2021).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Your sister is a fine woman... she's retained trees on her property.

And, those hideous plants are going to cost her a LOT of money too.
If she keeps the property, she will lose her ag production based property tax exemption because we as a county were not able to get the requirement removed that says grazing property be 75% cleared open space. Since she won't clear them off, the state and county says it is SHE that has opted to remove the property from 'ag production' and she will be receiving a bill from the county for the last 5 year's difference between what the regular tax would have been and what she was assessed and paid under ag exemption. That bill, will be due IN FULL 24 hrs after it arrives in her hand certified mail. She has 1 full day to pay it in full or it will begin accruing late fee penalties on a daily basis. It's called 'rollback'.

In addition, even tho our properties are identical in acreage, her's (even taking into account my structural improvements, house, barn, shop) is appraised 1/3 less market value as mine, simply because it's just another tree filled parcel among many tens of thousands of other acres of wooded land.
After 30 days, she is considered in arrears, tax delinquent and she will not be able to sell it.

If, after 180 days she still hasn't paid the rollback, her property gets a lien on it, and the whole 41.4 ac will be auctioned off the 2nd Tuesday of the following month on the courthouse steps.
All, just for a bunch of dang trees.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-26-2021).]

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-27-2021).]

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-27-2021).]

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-27-2021).]

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-27-2021).]