Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Pipilo St. property in PQ
- This topic has 230 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 6, 2011 at 11:59 PM #675328March 7, 2011 at 5:56 AM #674248
SD Realtor
ParticipantScarlett
The home may not be held by a bank and thus it is not an REO. The home most likely had two mortgages on it. As evidenced by the records there was an 87k purchase made at a trustee sale. That purchase was most likely made on the second mortgage. There is a first that was originated back in 2003 for 375k but it is a guess as to figure out what the balance is on that sale. The person making the purchase for 87k is more then likely someone who is not a good flipper OR it is someone who believes that they can get more then 87k back out of the deal. It all depends on what the balance of the first is.
Thus there is no deception on anyones part.
Finally, just because it went through a trustee sale does not mean that it has to be relisted. When there is a trustee sale on the first, it is pretty much a slam dunk that the home is pulled from the market and eventually relisted with someone else. When there is a second that is sold at trustee sale, it is a different situation. The first still holds sway and is not really involved in anything yet. The person or entity that bought the second can call the homeowner and let them know what went on and the same listing agent can be retained.
Honestly there is nothing wrong here. If you need any further help just post questions and I will do what I can.
March 7, 2011 at 5:56 AM #674305ParticipantScarlett
The home may not be held by a bank and thus it is not an REO. The home most likely had two mortgages on it. As evidenced by the records there was an 87k purchase made at a trustee sale. That purchase was most likely made on the second mortgage. There is a first that was originated back in 2003 for 375k but it is a guess as to figure out what the balance is on that sale. The person making the purchase for 87k is more then likely someone who is not a good flipper OR it is someone who believes that they can get more then 87k back out of the deal. It all depends on what the balance of the first is.
Thus there is no deception on anyones part.
Finally, just because it went through a trustee sale does not mean that it has to be relisted. When there is a trustee sale on the first, it is pretty much a slam dunk that the home is pulled from the market and eventually relisted with someone else. When there is a second that is sold at trustee sale, it is a different situation. The first still holds sway and is not really involved in anything yet. The person or entity that bought the second can call the homeowner and let them know what went on and the same listing agent can be retained.
Honestly there is nothing wrong here. If you need any further help just post questions and I will do what I can.
March 7, 2011 at 5:56 AM #674918ParticipantScarlett
The home may not be held by a bank and thus it is not an REO. The home most likely had two mortgages on it. As evidenced by the records there was an 87k purchase made at a trustee sale. That purchase was most likely made on the second mortgage. There is a first that was originated back in 2003 for 375k but it is a guess as to figure out what the balance is on that sale. The person making the purchase for 87k is more then likely someone who is not a good flipper OR it is someone who believes that they can get more then 87k back out of the deal. It all depends on what the balance of the first is.
Thus there is no deception on anyones part.
Finally, just because it went through a trustee sale does not mean that it has to be relisted. When there is a trustee sale on the first, it is pretty much a slam dunk that the home is pulled from the market and eventually relisted with someone else. When there is a second that is sold at trustee sale, it is a different situation. The first still holds sway and is not really involved in anything yet. The person or entity that bought the second can call the homeowner and let them know what went on and the same listing agent can be retained.
Honestly there is nothing wrong here. If you need any further help just post questions and I will do what I can.
March 7, 2011 at 5:56 AM #675055ParticipantScarlett
The home may not be held by a bank and thus it is not an REO. The home most likely had two mortgages on it. As evidenced by the records there was an 87k purchase made at a trustee sale. That purchase was most likely made on the second mortgage. There is a first that was originated back in 2003 for 375k but it is a guess as to figure out what the balance is on that sale. The person making the purchase for 87k is more then likely someone who is not a good flipper OR it is someone who believes that they can get more then 87k back out of the deal. It all depends on what the balance of the first is.
Thus there is no deception on anyones part.
Finally, just because it went through a trustee sale does not mean that it has to be relisted. When there is a trustee sale on the first, it is pretty much a slam dunk that the home is pulled from the market and eventually relisted with someone else. When there is a second that is sold at trustee sale, it is a different situation. The first still holds sway and is not really involved in anything yet. The person or entity that bought the second can call the homeowner and let them know what went on and the same listing agent can be retained.
Honestly there is nothing wrong here. If you need any further help just post questions and I will do what I can.
March 7, 2011 at 5:56 AM #675403ParticipantScarlett
The home may not be held by a bank and thus it is not an REO. The home most likely had two mortgages on it. As evidenced by the records there was an 87k purchase made at a trustee sale. That purchase was most likely made on the second mortgage. There is a first that was originated back in 2003 for 375k but it is a guess as to figure out what the balance is on that sale. The person making the purchase for 87k is more then likely someone who is not a good flipper OR it is someone who believes that they can get more then 87k back out of the deal. It all depends on what the balance of the first is.
Thus there is no deception on anyones part.
Finally, just because it went through a trustee sale does not mean that it has to be relisted. When there is a trustee sale on the first, it is pretty much a slam dunk that the home is pulled from the market and eventually relisted with someone else. When there is a second that is sold at trustee sale, it is a different situation. The first still holds sway and is not really involved in anything yet. The person or entity that bought the second can call the homeowner and let them know what went on and the same listing agent can be retained.
Honestly there is nothing wrong here. If you need any further help just post questions and I will do what I can.
March 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM #674283UCGal
ParticipantI captured the details of the trustee sale on sdlookup.
from priorityposting.com
Sale Date/Time: 11/16/2010 10:00 AM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $130,258.04
Bid Amount: $87,000.00
Sale Amount: $87,000.00
TS Number: CA01000020-10
APN: 315-468-18-0000
Priority #: 760738http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-32011534-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
So no-one purchased the (presumably) 2nd trust deed… it went back to the 2nd deed holder.
sdlookup shows they reduced the price to a “range” price of $499-524k on 11/18, 2 days after the trustee sale.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030315-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
March 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM #674340ParticipantI captured the details of the trustee sale on sdlookup.
from priorityposting.com
Sale Date/Time: 11/16/2010 10:00 AM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $130,258.04
Bid Amount: $87,000.00
Sale Amount: $87,000.00
TS Number: CA01000020-10
APN: 315-468-18-0000
Priority #: 760738http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-32011534-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
So no-one purchased the (presumably) 2nd trust deed… it went back to the 2nd deed holder.
sdlookup shows they reduced the price to a “range” price of $499-524k on 11/18, 2 days after the trustee sale.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030315-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
March 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM #674952ParticipantI captured the details of the trustee sale on sdlookup.
from priorityposting.com
Sale Date/Time: 11/16/2010 10:00 AM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $130,258.04
Bid Amount: $87,000.00
Sale Amount: $87,000.00
TS Number: CA01000020-10
APN: 315-468-18-0000
Priority #: 760738http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-32011534-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
So no-one purchased the (presumably) 2nd trust deed… it went back to the 2nd deed holder.
sdlookup shows they reduced the price to a “range” price of $499-524k on 11/18, 2 days after the trustee sale.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030315-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
March 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM #675090ParticipantI captured the details of the trustee sale on sdlookup.
from priorityposting.com
Sale Date/Time: 11/16/2010 10:00 AM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $130,258.04
Bid Amount: $87,000.00
Sale Amount: $87,000.00
TS Number: CA01000020-10
APN: 315-468-18-0000
Priority #: 760738http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-32011534-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
So no-one purchased the (presumably) 2nd trust deed… it went back to the 2nd deed holder.
sdlookup shows they reduced the price to a “range” price of $499-524k on 11/18, 2 days after the trustee sale.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030315-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
March 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM #675438ParticipantI captured the details of the trustee sale on sdlookup.
from priorityposting.com
Sale Date/Time: 11/16/2010 10:00 AM
Status: Revert to Beneficiary
Estimated Debt: $130,258.04
Bid Amount: $87,000.00
Sale Amount: $87,000.00
TS Number: CA01000020-10
APN: 315-468-18-0000
Priority #: 760738http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-32011534-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
So no-one purchased the (presumably) 2nd trust deed… it went back to the 2nd deed holder.
sdlookup shows they reduced the price to a “range” price of $499-524k on 11/18, 2 days after the trustee sale.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030315-9521_Pipilo_St_San_Diego_CA_92129
March 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM #674378Scarlett
ParticipantThank you all for clarifications! I have to learn more about the terminology and what it means.
BG, this property is very close to what I am looking for, in spite of the small ‘flaws’. I may still put in a lowball offer. Being a REO or traditional doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of my offer, though I think traditional it’s a easier process.
March 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM #674435ParticipantThank you all for clarifications! I have to learn more about the terminology and what it means.
BG, this property is very close to what I am looking for, in spite of the small ‘flaws’. I may still put in a lowball offer. Being a REO or traditional doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of my offer, though I think traditional it’s a easier process.
March 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM #675048ParticipantThank you all for clarifications! I have to learn more about the terminology and what it means.
BG, this property is very close to what I am looking for, in spite of the small ‘flaws’. I may still put in a lowball offer. Being a REO or traditional doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of my offer, though I think traditional it’s a easier process.
March 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM #675185ParticipantThank you all for clarifications! I have to learn more about the terminology and what it means.
BG, this property is very close to what I am looking for, in spite of the small ‘flaws’. I may still put in a lowball offer. Being a REO or traditional doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of my offer, though I think traditional it’s a easier process.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.
