Another “not fraudulent” short sale listing?

[SD Realtor]

What also has not been mentioned is the timeframe. It could very well be that the intent here was simply to buy time and get the full package into the lender so that the legal dept can stall the trustee sale. Then when the lender counters the price the listing agent will have more time to fetch a higher offer.

I am not saying this is the case but could be the case.

[Raybyrnes]

Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor

[Raybyrnes]

Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor

[Raybyrnes]

Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor

[Raybyrnes]

Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor

[Raybyrnes]

Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor[/quote]

I haven’t looked at the trust-deed amounts here, but everything appears to be in order. After 20 days on the market in 2011, it went pending and closed 17 days after that for $400K (cash sale??)

I believe the amount required to cure the delinquent trust deed was so low because it was a second TD holder. We don’t know the amount of the first TD that this second TD holder had to take “subject to.” Perhaps they recovered all of their investment in this recent $400K sale and perhaps they didn’t. It was the smartest thing they could have done to recover whatever losses they could.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor[/quote]

I haven’t looked at the trust-deed amounts here, but everything appears to be in order. After 20 days on the market in 2011, it went pending and closed 17 days after that for $400K (cash sale??)

I believe the amount required to cure the delinquent trust deed was so low because it was a second TD holder. We don’t know the amount of the first TD that this second TD holder had to take “subject to.” Perhaps they recovered all of their investment in this recent $400K sale and perhaps they didn’t. It was the smartest thing they could have done to recover whatever losses they could.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor[/quote]

I haven’t looked at the trust-deed amounts here, but everything appears to be in order. After 20 days on the market in 2011, it went pending and closed 17 days after that for $400K (cash sale??)

I believe the amount required to cure the delinquent trust deed was so low because it was a second TD holder. We don’t know the amount of the first TD that this second TD holder had to take “subject to.” Perhaps they recovered all of their investment in this recent $400K sale and perhaps they didn’t. It was the smartest thing they could have done to recover whatever losses they could.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor[/quote]

I haven’t looked at the trust-deed amounts here, but everything appears to be in order. After 20 days on the market in 2011, it went pending and closed 17 days after that for $400K (cash sale??)

I believe the amount required to cure the delinquent trust deed was so low because it was a second TD holder. We don’t know the amount of the first TD that this second TD holder had to take “subject to.” Perhaps they recovered all of their investment in this recent $400K sale and perhaps they didn’t. It was the smartest thing they could have done to recover whatever losses they could.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Here’s another debatable transaction. 171 to 400 in a year

Property History for 3994 Riviera Dr Unit D
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (Public Records) $400,000 -3.3%/yr Public Records
Mar 25, 2011 Sold (MLS) (Sold) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Mar 08, 2011 Pending (Contingent) — — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Feb 16, 2011 Listed (Active) $400,000 — Inactive SANDICOR #110010034
Sep 21, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed

and bank-owned

. $171,528 — Public Records
Nov 26, 2003 Sold (Public Records) $510,000 — Public Records

For completeness, Redfin often displays two recor[/quote]

I haven’t looked at the trust-deed amounts here, but everything appears to be in order. After 20 days on the market in 2011, it went pending and closed 17 days after that for $400K (cash sale??)

I believe the amount required to cure the delinquent trust deed was so low because it was a second TD holder. We don’t know the amount of the first TD that this second TD holder had to take “subject to.” Perhaps they recovered all of their investment in this recent $400K sale and perhaps they didn’t. It was the smartest thing they could have done to recover whatever losses they could.

[bearishgurl]

For a full understanding, what I meant to say in my last post is that I believe the foreclosing lender in this case was subordinate, that is, they were not the 1st TD holder.

[bearishgurl]

For a full understanding, what I meant to say in my last post is that I believe the foreclosing lender in this case was subordinate, that is, they were not the 1st TD holder.

[bearishgurl]

For a full understanding, what I meant to say in my last post is that I believe the foreclosing lender in this case was subordinate, that is, they were not the 1st TD holder.

[bearishgurl]

For a full understanding, what I meant to say in my last post is that I believe the foreclosing lender in this case was subordinate, that is, they were not the 1st TD holder.

[Author]

Posts