[quote=UCGal] . . . Here’s a 92109 example of what appeared to be a solid equity seller who wasn’t… Bought in 1995 for $760k. Listed in Oct 2009 for $3.85M, lowered the price in Oct 2010 to 3.39M. Foreclosed on yesterday.
Beautiful house (I’d live there.) But the owners appear to have pulled a lot of $$ out of it. (owed more than $2M) Then couldn’t get their wish price after more than a year on the market.
Even high end areas, even homes bought before the bubble, can be at risk.[/quote]
UCGal, I think you mean 92106 here, not 92109 (PB). I just looked at the pics of your property that went back to bene yesterday for the opening bid of $2.519M. It DOES appear that the 15-year owners put some of their ATM’d equity back into the property in the form of improvements. It is shocking to me that they were able to refinance and/or obtain a 2nd TD/HELOC one or more times and borrow a total of $2.25M or thereabouts ($2.36M with late fees/trustees fees). They originally paid $760K so their original loan was likely =<$608K.
It was listed for over a year at $3.4M after at least one price reduction. In order to avoid foreclosure, the sellers should have listed it for $2.6M straight “out of the gate” or just enough to pay their RE broker and share of closing costs and get out. This property’s location is ULTRA PRIME. I believe it may have sold for around that price. The reason it went back to bene on the steps is because the trustee’s sale was “cash only,” and a potential buyer of this trustee’s deed may have been saddled with evicting the defaulting trustor and his/her family, if they were to take title (and/or it could have had property tax and other tax liens that we don’t know about).
This seller in trouble wasted WAY TOO MUCH market time on an airy-fairy price, scaring off potential serious qualified buyers … and didn’t have the luxury of time on their hands to play this game. These seller(s) created all of their own problems, here, IMO.
