Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Questionable Transaction
- This topic has 35 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 25, 2011 at 8:49 PM #690288April 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM #689124
urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Raybyrnes]171000 was the previous transaction. 400 to 400 reasonable. 171 to 400 not reasonable[/quote]
the $171K appears to be the credit bid in foreclosure. Not a sales price.[/quote]
The irony is that if anyone had shown up with cash to the foreclosure auction, they would have gotten a hell of a steal.
April 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM #689188Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Raybyrnes]171000 was the previous transaction. 400 to 400 reasonable. 171 to 400 not reasonable[/quote]
the $171K appears to be the credit bid in foreclosure. Not a sales price.[/quote]
The irony is that if anyone had shown up with cash to the foreclosure auction, they would have gotten a hell of a steal.
April 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM #689804Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Raybyrnes]171000 was the previous transaction. 400 to 400 reasonable. 171 to 400 not reasonable[/quote]
the $171K appears to be the credit bid in foreclosure. Not a sales price.[/quote]
The irony is that if anyone had shown up with cash to the foreclosure auction, they would have gotten a hell of a steal.
April 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM #689946Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Raybyrnes]171000 was the previous transaction. 400 to 400 reasonable. 171 to 400 not reasonable[/quote]
the $171K appears to be the credit bid in foreclosure. Not a sales price.[/quote]
The irony is that if anyone had shown up with cash to the foreclosure auction, they would have gotten a hell of a steal.
April 25, 2011 at 9:07 PM #690298Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Raybyrnes]171000 was the previous transaction. 400 to 400 reasonable. 171 to 400 not reasonable[/quote]
the $171K appears to be the credit bid in foreclosure. Not a sales price.[/quote]
The irony is that if anyone had shown up with cash to the foreclosure auction, they would have gotten a hell of a steal.
April 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM #689269UCGal
ParticipantI agree this doesn’t look fishy to me.
There might have been liens or other encumbrances that scared away investors at the auction… but it was offered for sale (all cash) for $171k on the court house steps – no takers.
The bank tried listing it for $544k originally – with no takers between 11/2010 and 2/2011… dropping the price along the way to $459k.
MLS-100052302They relisted again at $400k and got a buyer.
MLS-110010034It seems fairly above board to me.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-8CBD3DFC-3994_Riviera_Dr_D_San_Diego_CA_92109http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3994-Riviera-Dr-92109/unit-D/home/5178102
April 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM #689333ParticipantI agree this doesn’t look fishy to me.
There might have been liens or other encumbrances that scared away investors at the auction… but it was offered for sale (all cash) for $171k on the court house steps – no takers.
The bank tried listing it for $544k originally – with no takers between 11/2010 and 2/2011… dropping the price along the way to $459k.
MLS-100052302They relisted again at $400k and got a buyer.
MLS-110010034It seems fairly above board to me.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-8CBD3DFC-3994_Riviera_Dr_D_San_Diego_CA_92109http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3994-Riviera-Dr-92109/unit-D/home/5178102
April 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM #689948ParticipantI agree this doesn’t look fishy to me.
There might have been liens or other encumbrances that scared away investors at the auction… but it was offered for sale (all cash) for $171k on the court house steps – no takers.
The bank tried listing it for $544k originally – with no takers between 11/2010 and 2/2011… dropping the price along the way to $459k.
MLS-100052302They relisted again at $400k and got a buyer.
MLS-110010034It seems fairly above board to me.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-8CBD3DFC-3994_Riviera_Dr_D_San_Diego_CA_92109http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3994-Riviera-Dr-92109/unit-D/home/5178102
April 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM #690091ParticipantI agree this doesn’t look fishy to me.
There might have been liens or other encumbrances that scared away investors at the auction… but it was offered for sale (all cash) for $171k on the court house steps – no takers.
The bank tried listing it for $544k originally – with no takers between 11/2010 and 2/2011… dropping the price along the way to $459k.
MLS-100052302They relisted again at $400k and got a buyer.
MLS-110010034It seems fairly above board to me.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-8CBD3DFC-3994_Riviera_Dr_D_San_Diego_CA_92109http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3994-Riviera-Dr-92109/unit-D/home/5178102
April 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM #690441ParticipantI agree this doesn’t look fishy to me.
There might have been liens or other encumbrances that scared away investors at the auction… but it was offered for sale (all cash) for $171k on the court house steps – no takers.
The bank tried listing it for $544k originally – with no takers between 11/2010 and 2/2011… dropping the price along the way to $459k.
MLS-100052302They relisted again at $400k and got a buyer.
MLS-110010034It seems fairly above board to me.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-8CBD3DFC-3994_Riviera_Dr_D_San_Diego_CA_92109http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3994-Riviera-Dr-92109/unit-D/home/5178102
April 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM #689332bearishgurl
ParticipantAcc to the San Diego Tax Collector and ARCC, the delinquent trustors (M/M Jimenez) were not only behind in their taxes for the Dec 2010 installment, they had two TD’s outstanding at the time the property reverted back to bene and Mr. Jimenez had an outstanding child support judgment in LA County and another (unspecified) judgment in favor of SD County (senior to foreclosed TD). Foreclosing bene had both reconveyances filed of the delinquent trust deeds shortly after taking title. At the time of recording the most recent sale (3/25/11), TWO grant deeds were filed in favor of the new buyer (a single woman), one from NFCU and one from a private individual (equity partner or judgment creditor?). The new buyer paid cash.
The reason I believe that there was initially an “equity partner” or “judgment creditor-seller” in the sale here (or a straw-buyer of some sort) and the female purchaser didn’t buy two properties the same day is because the “equity partner” individual has no prior recordings under his name in the SD County ARCC (and therefore had no property interests to convey).
Having NOT seen (elec or paper copies) of any of the above documents, this is only my opinion of what happened here.
Tax records do not show that the condo was owner-occupied at the time of trustee’s sale but the supplemental bill obviously has not yet been mailed to the new owner (who may now be taking the HOEX).
April 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM #689398ParticipantAcc to the San Diego Tax Collector and ARCC, the delinquent trustors (M/M Jimenez) were not only behind in their taxes for the Dec 2010 installment, they had two TD’s outstanding at the time the property reverted back to bene and Mr. Jimenez had an outstanding child support judgment in LA County and another (unspecified) judgment in favor of SD County (senior to foreclosed TD). Foreclosing bene had both reconveyances filed of the delinquent trust deeds shortly after taking title. At the time of recording the most recent sale (3/25/11), TWO grant deeds were filed in favor of the new buyer (a single woman), one from NFCU and one from a private individual (equity partner or judgment creditor?). The new buyer paid cash.
The reason I believe that there was initially an “equity partner” or “judgment creditor-seller” in the sale here (or a straw-buyer of some sort) and the female purchaser didn’t buy two properties the same day is because the “equity partner” individual has no prior recordings under his name in the SD County ARCC (and therefore had no property interests to convey).
Having NOT seen (elec or paper copies) of any of the above documents, this is only my opinion of what happened here.
Tax records do not show that the condo was owner-occupied at the time of trustee’s sale but the supplemental bill obviously has not yet been mailed to the new owner (who may now be taking the HOEX).
April 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM #690013ParticipantAcc to the San Diego Tax Collector and ARCC, the delinquent trustors (M/M Jimenez) were not only behind in their taxes for the Dec 2010 installment, they had two TD’s outstanding at the time the property reverted back to bene and Mr. Jimenez had an outstanding child support judgment in LA County and another (unspecified) judgment in favor of SD County (senior to foreclosed TD). Foreclosing bene had both reconveyances filed of the delinquent trust deeds shortly after taking title. At the time of recording the most recent sale (3/25/11), TWO grant deeds were filed in favor of the new buyer (a single woman), one from NFCU and one from a private individual (equity partner or judgment creditor?). The new buyer paid cash.
The reason I believe that there was initially an “equity partner” or “judgment creditor-seller” in the sale here (or a straw-buyer of some sort) and the female purchaser didn’t buy two properties the same day is because the “equity partner” individual has no prior recordings under his name in the SD County ARCC (and therefore had no property interests to convey).
Having NOT seen (elec or paper copies) of any of the above documents, this is only my opinion of what happened here.
Tax records do not show that the condo was owner-occupied at the time of trustee’s sale but the supplemental bill obviously has not yet been mailed to the new owner (who may now be taking the HOEX).
April 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM #690156ParticipantAcc to the San Diego Tax Collector and ARCC, the delinquent trustors (M/M Jimenez) were not only behind in their taxes for the Dec 2010 installment, they had two TD’s outstanding at the time the property reverted back to bene and Mr. Jimenez had an outstanding child support judgment in LA County and another (unspecified) judgment in favor of SD County (senior to foreclosed TD). Foreclosing bene had both reconveyances filed of the delinquent trust deeds shortly after taking title. At the time of recording the most recent sale (3/25/11), TWO grant deeds were filed in favor of the new buyer (a single woman), one from NFCU and one from a private individual (equity partner or judgment creditor?). The new buyer paid cash.
The reason I believe that there was initially an “equity partner” or “judgment creditor-seller” in the sale here (or a straw-buyer of some sort) and the female purchaser didn’t buy two properties the same day is because the “equity partner” individual has no prior recordings under his name in the SD County ARCC (and therefore had no property interests to convey).
Having NOT seen (elec or paper copies) of any of the above documents, this is only my opinion of what happened here.
Tax records do not show that the condo was owner-occupied at the time of trustee’s sale but the supplemental bill obviously has not yet been mailed to the new owner (who may now be taking the HOEX).
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.