local realtor may have stolen property from mentally disabled man

[Hatfield]

I live at the south end of OB near Pt Loma Avenue. This is up on the hill where virtually every house has ocean views. A house around the corner has recently changed hands and the neighborhood rumors make the deal seem shady as hell.

What I was told: the house was owned by a family whose mid-40s son has severe mental handicaps. When the last parent died, the son was put into some sort of group home, and the house was bought by the next door neighbor, who I’m told is a realtor. This is a 3 bedroom house with ocean views. It was in need of some repair, but was probably worth at least $800K. It sold for $480K (confirmed that myself on the county website). It’s been fixed up and it looks like they’re getting it ready for sale.

If in fact the property was stolen, it’s a pretty evil move on the buyer’s part. If the buyer in question actually does have a real estate license, they probably should be in jail.

If this happened near you, what would you do?

[CA renter]

First, try to call the listing agent and ask them about why the home was sold for such a low price. If they refuse to tell you, or if the story is dodgy, it might be a good idea to look into the trustees of the parents’ estate, and also look into who the guardian of this man might be.

If you can’t get anywhere with this, it might be a good idea to report it to the California Department of Real Estate, at least for a start. After that, the police, though I’m not convinced they’ll do much. Definitely worth escalating this, IMO, because there is nothing worse than people taking advantage of those who have no means of defending themselves.

If you need help with any of this, please PM me. I will help in any way possible.

[Hatfield]

Good ideas. How would I find out who the listing agent was? I don’t believe there was ever a sign up front. Who knows if it even hit the MLS.

The parcel number is 448-611-16-00

[CA renter]

From what I can tell, that property is valued at just over $80,000 according to public records. Doesn’t sound right for a house in Pt. Loma/OB with an ocean view. Are you sure that the APN is correct?

If it is correct, the property address is not allowed to be shown according to California Government Code Section 6254.21, which protects public officials and appointees, including law enforcement. So, that’s an interesting tidbit.

The wife appears to be in the mortgage business, so I’m guessing the husband works in law enforcement or is a public official or appointee.

Not sure if this is the current owner (might not be updated information, depending on when the home was sold, and the amount doesn’t match up), or if it’s the original owner, in which case the price might make some sense…but not really. No, that still wouldn’t make sense.

If this is anything other than a small vacant lot behind some dumpsters in in a back alley with high-power tension lines running above it, it looks strangely suspicious.

If you can PM me the address, that might help.

[CA renter]

Just found some more info on the husband. Looks like he’s in the RE business, too, as a RE broker.

So, we have two people from the RE industry here. I wonder how they got the special property address designation that’s only supposed to be available to LEO and other public officials (who might be targeted by criminals).

The plot thickens!

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]

If it is correct, the property address is not allowed to be shown according to California Government Code Section 6254.21, which protects public officials and appointees, including law enforcement. So, that’s an interesting tidbit.
[/quote]

There’s nothing out of the ordinary about this.
If you search by parcel number, the address is never shown…

Try it yourself. Search your own address, get your parcel number, and then go back and search by parcel number alone… Same thing…
Nothing unusual about that…

[CA renter]

Thanks for the info, flu, I’ll check it out. I thought I had gotten addresses this way before. The notice on the site mentions the code listed above, so that’s why I thought something weird was going on with that.

[spdrun]

Is your goal punishment or justice?

If you want the disabled man to actually get the house back, how about some creative blackmail vs a police report? If the broker stands trial, the value of the house might be eaten up by lawyer’s fees and Lord knows what else. Whereas, if he can be convinced to sell the house back to the victim at a slight loss…

[FlyerInHi]

Here’s the address. Google is your friend.
4581 Orchard Ave,
San Diego, CA 92107
Parcel: 448-611-16-00
Current owner: LENYK RICHARD W S&MARSHA L
Previous owner as of Jan 1, 2014: OLSON IRENE EST OF
Net taxable value is $80,063 but that seems normal since the property was recently transferred. Reassessment will happen as of next bill.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/4581-Orchard-Ave-92107/home/5337791

You can go down the Recorder’s office and pull the recorded documents for free. Or order them online for a fee.

CAr, the Collectors’s site allows you to search by billing address, not property address.

I came across a similar situation before. An old lady had her house stolen by a friend she had befriended a couple decades ago at a community center. That evil friend actually felt that she deserved the house claiming the help she provided the old lady over the years was sweat and tears that needed compensation.

It was not in CA, and the amounts were smaller, but we were able to get the evil woman to return the money. The old lady had been written about in the local paper before. There were newspaper clippings; so I called the reporter, explained and situation and asked for his help. Not sure if the reporter did anything; but soon after, the evil woman’s son, a lawyer, contacted me to settle the deal. Not sure if the lawyer was in on it.

I still have the paperwork… so if the lawyer ever runs for political office, I still have proof of his mom’s evil doings.

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI, do you really want to be doxxing people on a public forum based on what’s essentially hearsay by one forum member?

[CA renter]

Thanks, Brian!

Through my searches, I had come up with 4591 Orchard Ave. Forgot that Hatfield had mentioned that this was the next-door neighbor.

Even if the house was bought decades ago, don’t you think that an $80,000 valuation seems WAY below value, even if the assessment had just gone up by 2% each year? I’ve seen a lot of houses that were purchased way back when (including my MIL’s house that was purchased by her parents), but have not seen a valuation that low for a home in an area like this. They also updated the owner’s name, so I’m wondering why the amount doesn’t match up. And the sale price of $480K looks VERY shady.

Either way, I think Hatfield is on to something here. I’m glad he’s decided to look into it further. I will do whatever I can to help, too.

[spdrun]

2% per annum compounded over 35 years is only 200%. If they bought it for $40,000 in 1979, it’s quite plausible.

Also, there may have been some years where the assessment did NOT go up by the 2% per annum.

[CA renter]

Okay, I’m going to retract my statement about it being *very* shady. After looking at the condition of the house (via the internet), and comparing it to the comps, this would be an exceptionally good deal, and might not warrant *very shady.*

However, the fact that this house was not put on the open market leads me to believe that the trustee of the estate did not do his/her job. Everyone knows that the best price is achieved by opening up the market to the greatest possible number of potential buyers. If the son is disabled enough to live in a group home, he’s not capable of making the decisions for the estate, and I’m sure his parents would have wanted to maximize whatever the estate could get for the home in order to care for their son. Because of that alone, this looks unethical, to say the least. It warrants some more attention.

An afterthought…maybe the neighbors were such good friends that they are trying to help this son by flipping the house for the highest possible price and then giving him the net profits. It’s a long shot, but at least it’s a possibility. Just trying to think of the different angles.

[bearishgurl]

The tax bill is legitimate. The property was owned by the Estate of Irene Olson for Tax Year 13/14. The tax bill reveals that the last document filed on the property under owner(s)Olson was in 2010 (perhaps an affidavit when the joint-tenant died?).

The property was likely owned by the Olsons for several decades, hence the low “current” assessment. The new buyers, the Lenyks, have not yet received their supplemental tax bill as this typically takes the county assessor about nine months after closing to generate and mail. The Lenyks paid their first tax bill, the 12/10/14 installment of $487.15, on 12/5/14. Since the FY 14/15 tax bill with the Olson’s assessment on it was generated the third week of September 2014 and mailed to the Lenyks at the property address, it is the only current tax bill the Lenyks could pay at this time.

The new SDARCC system reveals that the property was sold on 5/2/14 to the Lenyks by Victor Gilbert Olson, Jr, the court-appointed administrator of the Irene Olson Estate who issued the Lenyks some sort of a deed (grant deed, quitclaim deed or Administrator’s deed). On that same day, Victor Olson carried a purchase money deed of trust for the Lenyks and recorded it (amounts not revealed without ordering docs). Acc to the the San Diego Superior Court Register of Actions, the Estate of Irene Olson was Petitioned for on 4/29/13 in the San Diego Superior Court by Victor Gilbert Olson. He made 16 filings to the court (including the estate inventory and final accounting), was issued Letters Administration on 6/6/13, attended two hearings and was at all times represented by counsel. Minutes were taken during those hearings, an examiner was present and could find no abnormalities in the documents filed. Victor Olson filed a court order with the county recorder (giving him the power of sale of real property?) on 4/14/14 and filed an ex parte Petition for the discharge of the Olson probate matter on 4/18/14.

I dunno. Were the Lenyks in the right place at the right time willing to accept the property with no guarantees? Was the property ever actually listed on the MLS? Did Victor Olson decide NOT to list it for some reason? (I haven’t checked.) Was there extensive termite and/or dryrot damage? Was the property insurable? Were the Lenyks willing to buy the property “as-is” on the spot without “realtors” and thus save the estate the cost of commission (since one or both of them are apparently licensees – haven’t checked this out). Who is Victor Olson and why was he willing to extend credit to the Lenyks instead of accepting an all-cash deal (preferable in a probate sale)? Could it be that the cash offers he got weren’t as much as the price that the Lenyks offered him with an owner carryback (which may be a balloon note for a short time frame, as many probate OWCB sales are). It is very likely that the property didn’t qualify for financing.

If the property now appears to be getting readied for sale, then the Lenyk’s intention was apparently to do just that, successfully sell it, pay off their OWCB financing and make a profit.

I found out all of the above in approx 22 minutes while learning to use a new online system SDARCC has (but could have pieced it together on the old system in half that time simply because I am more familiar with it). I do not know the address because I do not subscribe to REALIST or other service.

It appears that the “sales” data (parcel transfer transactions) for the last two years has been removed from the assessor’s new system so I cannot corroborate Hatfield’s purported sales price. If anyone can find it, let us know.

Perhaps Hatfield can answer some of the above questions himself.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]2% per annum compounded over 35 years is only 200%. If they bought it for $40,000 in 1979, it’s quite plausible.

Also, there may have been some years where the assessment did NOT go up by the 2% per annum.[/quote]

spd, for being located on the east coast of the US (and not “local”), I think you’re pretty sharp.

I actually think the Olson’s purchased it between 1966 amd 1973.

[Author]

Posts