- This topic has 16 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
temeculaguy.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 5, 2007 at 9:10 AM #9716August 5, 2007 at 9:44 AM #70409
Arraya
ParticipantWow, obvioulsy #2 is a much better negotiator;)
Being that the sale closed in June an appraiser can go back six months to use comparibles. On paper one could justify that price using comparibles within the allowable timeframe. However doing that an appraiser would have to completely ignore some blatently obvious trends.
Hopefully #1 asks the same question to all the people involved in the transaction.
Interesting.
August 5, 2007 at 9:44 AM #70411ParticipantWow, obvioulsy #2 is a much better negotiator;)
Being that the sale closed in June an appraiser can go back six months to use comparibles. On paper one could justify that price using comparibles within the allowable timeframe. However doing that an appraiser would have to completely ignore some blatently obvious trends.
Hopefully #1 asks the same question to all the people involved in the transaction.
Interesting.
August 5, 2007 at 9:44 AM #70486ParticipantWow, obvioulsy #2 is a much better negotiator;)
Being that the sale closed in June an appraiser can go back six months to use comparibles. On paper one could justify that price using comparibles within the allowable timeframe. However doing that an appraiser would have to completely ignore some blatently obvious trends.
Hopefully #1 asks the same question to all the people involved in the transaction.
Interesting.
August 5, 2007 at 9:44 AM #70488ParticipantWow, obvioulsy #2 is a much better negotiator;)
Being that the sale closed in June an appraiser can go back six months to use comparibles. On paper one could justify that price using comparibles within the allowable timeframe. However doing that an appraiser would have to completely ignore some blatently obvious trends.
Hopefully #1 asks the same question to all the people involved in the transaction.
Interesting.
August 5, 2007 at 10:31 AM #70413TemekuT
ParticipantWhoops, didn’t notice and/or forgot to post relevant details…I must have been coffee deficient.
1. House #1 was headed to REO land early in 2007. It was listed for 6 plus months at $679,000 and expired in February 2007. Then, off of the MLS, looks like some person bought and flipped to a corporation and then to another individual all on the same day in June. The grant deed sequence is confusing and the details are unclear to me, however, since the last MLS listing price prior to expiring in February was $679,000 and since nothing here is going for anywhere near to $810,000 in the last several months, what gives?
2. Only 5% of purchaser’s money in the deal. Wells Fargo 1st & 2nd amount to 85% of the purchase price.
August 5, 2007 at 10:31 AM #70489ParticipantWhoops, didn’t notice and/or forgot to post relevant details…I must have been coffee deficient.
1. House #1 was headed to REO land early in 2007. It was listed for 6 plus months at $679,000 and expired in February 2007. Then, off of the MLS, looks like some person bought and flipped to a corporation and then to another individual all on the same day in June. The grant deed sequence is confusing and the details are unclear to me, however, since the last MLS listing price prior to expiring in February was $679,000 and since nothing here is going for anywhere near to $810,000 in the last several months, what gives?
2. Only 5% of purchaser’s money in the deal. Wells Fargo 1st & 2nd amount to 85% of the purchase price.
August 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM #70425ParticipantYeah, some sort of cash back fraud. Looks like the owner now is a company. Hmmm…
August 5, 2007 at 10:43 AM #70502ParticipantYeah, some sort of cash back fraud. Looks like the owner now is a company. Hmmm…
August 5, 2007 at 10:44 AM #70421bsrsharma
ParticipantTemekuT,
“House #1 was headed to REO land early in 2007. It was listed for 6 plus months at $679,000 and expired in February 2007”
That seems like a smoking gun – this transaction looks fraudulent. If the buyer walks soon, he has probably pocketed a good kick back. He helped the seller sell the property to Wells for $729,000! Deserves a kick back of $100K for the hard work.
August 5, 2007 at 10:44 AM #70498ParticipantTemekuT,
“House #1 was headed to REO land early in 2007. It was listed for 6 plus months at $679,000 and expired in February 2007”
That seems like a smoking gun – this transaction looks fraudulent. If the buyer walks soon, he has probably pocketed a good kick back. He helped the seller sell the property to Wells for $729,000! Deserves a kick back of $100K for the hard work.
August 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM #70433temeculaguy
ParticipantSomething stinks in Denmark, according to the temecula GIS the owner of 33979 is GMAC so they repo’d it at 555k, the owner of 33965 is owner occupied and financed with WF but he had nine transactions since feb and a search of his name shows he owned a flipper company called The Loan Company in the past. That house isn’t worth 550k today, that street was the subject of a story on NBC nightly news with Bran Williams about a month ago for being riddled with repos. I can’t figure it out, that neighborhood has a bunch of the Murrieta fraud houses and the D.A./U.S. attorney is investigating, it is pretty ballsy to pull a fraud within the crime scene of a fraud investigation. That’s like some child molester driving on westerfield’s street during the trial and offering kids candy from a van while news cameras are getting file footage, there’s got to be a better explanation.
August 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM #70510ParticipantSomething stinks in Denmark, according to the temecula GIS the owner of 33979 is GMAC so they repo’d it at 555k, the owner of 33965 is owner occupied and financed with WF but he had nine transactions since feb and a search of his name shows he owned a flipper company called The Loan Company in the past. That house isn’t worth 550k today, that street was the subject of a story on NBC nightly news with Bran Williams about a month ago for being riddled with repos. I can’t figure it out, that neighborhood has a bunch of the Murrieta fraud houses and the D.A./U.S. attorney is investigating, it is pretty ballsy to pull a fraud within the crime scene of a fraud investigation. That’s like some child molester driving on westerfield’s street during the trial and offering kids candy from a van while news cameras are getting file footage, there’s got to be a better explanation.
August 5, 2007 at 11:38 AM #70443ParticipantThe title report that I looked at for 33965 shows a company name as owner and an address in Ocean Beach?
August 5, 2007 at 11:38 AM #70520ParticipantThe title report that I looked at for 33965 shows a company name as owner and an address in Ocean Beach?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.