Pipilo St. property in PQ

[bearishgurl]

I just took a closer look at your listing. The listing WAS changed on 11/24/10. This was two days after the trustees sale.

*****

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/9521-…

Listing last changed
November 24, 2010, 8:29 AM

Nov 22, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was sold at a foreclosure auction $87,000 — Public Records

*****

It appears that the WGJ Trust may have purchased the property at the sale, rather than from CB&T. Perhaps UCGal or a Pigg who subscribes to a service could tell you if the WGJ Trust was the TD buyer or bene and/or a jr lienholder in this case, just to be clear.

[SD Realtor]

Scarlett

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.

[SD Realtor]

Scarlett

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.

[SD Realtor]

Scarlett

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.

[SD Realtor]

Scarlett

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.

[SD Realtor]

Scarlett

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.

[UCGal]

I 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 #: 760738

http://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

[UCGal]

I 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 #: 760738

http://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

[UCGal]

I 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 #: 760738

http://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

[UCGal]

I 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 #: 760738

http://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

[UCGal]

I 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 #: 760738

http://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

[Scarlett]

Thank 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.

[Scarlett]

Thank 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.

[Scarlett]

Thank 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.

[Scarlett]

Thank 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.

[Author]

Posts