Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]Web site was just updated. The house was sold to a 3rd party for the minimum bid for $460K.[/quote]
Apparently, the trustees-sale buyer thought it was worth that based upon a “drive-by” and examination of the title/assessor record.
Perhaps it had retained enough original charm from the outside that the TD purchaser didn’t care if he/she had to do a lot of work on the inside or he/she approached the tenant about purchasing it after the orig. Notice of Default was filed or after the death notice was published and got to see the inside.
$460K just seems a little high to me for that size lot unless (1) it is NOT surrounded by apt. bldgs; (2) the “goodies” inside were all original and intact; and/or (3) it had a Mills Act contract on it.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]Web site was just updated. The house was sold to a 3rd party for the minimum bid for $460K.[/quote]
Apparently, the trustees-sale buyer thought it was worth that based upon a “drive-by” and examination of the title/assessor record.
Perhaps it had retained enough original charm from the outside that the TD purchaser didn’t care if he/she had to do a lot of work on the inside or he/she approached the tenant about purchasing it after the orig. Notice of Default was filed or after the death notice was published and got to see the inside.
$460K just seems a little high to me for that size lot unless (1) it is NOT surrounded by apt. bldgs; (2) the “goodies” inside were all original and intact; and/or (3) it had a Mills Act contract on it.
Participant3600 sf is a tiny lot (SD City Avg. is 5000 sf) and although the house is “med. sized” in sq. footage for that era, a one-car garage renders it “economically obsolecent.” Most buyers need a two-car garage today, esp. in North Park where st. parking is at a premium. There is probably no room on that lot to enlarge the existing garage and still be able to drive into it, unless the already small backyard was given up and the new garage door was turned facing an alley, if avail. This could cost $25 – $40K (+ permits??) and may not be worth it.
Just because the property is a “Craftman” doesn’t mean all it’s orig. redwood or cedar “built-ins” or the moulding isn’t now painted over several coats (with lead or oil-based paint) or it has a modern kitchen.
If the decedent paid $447K for the property in 2002 and put $35K down, her orig. loan was for $412K. That is a very small downpayment and she would have very likely had PMI payments as well. Either she was able to make the payments sporadically enough over the years to stave off foreclosure or refinanced and/or heloc’d the property to enable her to keep making the payments. Her troubles hanging on probably began PRIOR to her marketing the property at the peak. Greed or being overmortgaged and/or otherwise liened, along with possibly being ill, kept her from reducing the price at the “peak” so she could get out from under her encumbrances.
Participant3600 sf is a tiny lot (SD City Avg. is 5000 sf) and although the house is “med. sized” in sq. footage for that era, a one-car garage renders it “economically obsolecent.” Most buyers need a two-car garage today, esp. in North Park where st. parking is at a premium. There is probably no room on that lot to enlarge the existing garage and still be able to drive into it, unless the already small backyard was given up and the new garage door was turned facing an alley, if avail. This could cost $25 – $40K (+ permits??) and may not be worth it.
Just because the property is a “Craftman” doesn’t mean all it’s orig. redwood or cedar “built-ins” or the moulding isn’t now painted over several coats (with lead or oil-based paint) or it has a modern kitchen.
If the decedent paid $447K for the property in 2002 and put $35K down, her orig. loan was for $412K. That is a very small downpayment and she would have very likely had PMI payments as well. Either she was able to make the payments sporadically enough over the years to stave off foreclosure or refinanced and/or heloc’d the property to enable her to keep making the payments. Her troubles hanging on probably began PRIOR to her marketing the property at the peak. Greed or being overmortgaged and/or otherwise liened, along with possibly being ill, kept her from reducing the price at the “peak” so she could get out from under her encumbrances.
Participant3600 sf is a tiny lot (SD City Avg. is 5000 sf) and although the house is “med. sized” in sq. footage for that era, a one-car garage renders it “economically obsolecent.” Most buyers need a two-car garage today, esp. in North Park where st. parking is at a premium. There is probably no room on that lot to enlarge the existing garage and still be able to drive into it, unless the already small backyard was given up and the new garage door was turned facing an alley, if avail. This could cost $25 – $40K (+ permits??) and may not be worth it.
Just because the property is a “Craftman” doesn’t mean all it’s orig. redwood or cedar “built-ins” or the moulding isn’t now painted over several coats (with lead or oil-based paint) or it has a modern kitchen.
If the decedent paid $447K for the property in 2002 and put $35K down, her orig. loan was for $412K. That is a very small downpayment and she would have very likely had PMI payments as well. Either she was able to make the payments sporadically enough over the years to stave off foreclosure or refinanced and/or heloc’d the property to enable her to keep making the payments. Her troubles hanging on probably began PRIOR to her marketing the property at the peak. Greed or being overmortgaged and/or otherwise liened, along with possibly being ill, kept her from reducing the price at the “peak” so she could get out from under her encumbrances.
Participant3600 sf is a tiny lot (SD City Avg. is 5000 sf) and although the house is “med. sized” in sq. footage for that era, a one-car garage renders it “economically obsolecent.” Most buyers need a two-car garage today, esp. in North Park where st. parking is at a premium. There is probably no room on that lot to enlarge the existing garage and still be able to drive into it, unless the already small backyard was given up and the new garage door was turned facing an alley, if avail. This could cost $25 – $40K (+ permits??) and may not be worth it.
Just because the property is a “Craftman” doesn’t mean all it’s orig. redwood or cedar “built-ins” or the moulding isn’t now painted over several coats (with lead or oil-based paint) or it has a modern kitchen.
If the decedent paid $447K for the property in 2002 and put $35K down, her orig. loan was for $412K. That is a very small downpayment and she would have very likely had PMI payments as well. Either she was able to make the payments sporadically enough over the years to stave off foreclosure or refinanced and/or heloc’d the property to enable her to keep making the payments. Her troubles hanging on probably began PRIOR to her marketing the property at the peak. Greed or being overmortgaged and/or otherwise liened, along with possibly being ill, kept her from reducing the price at the “peak” so she could get out from under her encumbrances.
Participant3600 sf is a tiny lot (SD City Avg. is 5000 sf) and although the house is “med. sized” in sq. footage for that era, a one-car garage renders it “economically obsolecent.” Most buyers need a two-car garage today, esp. in North Park where st. parking is at a premium. There is probably no room on that lot to enlarge the existing garage and still be able to drive into it, unless the already small backyard was given up and the new garage door was turned facing an alley, if avail. This could cost $25 – $40K (+ permits??) and may not be worth it.
Just because the property is a “Craftman” doesn’t mean all it’s orig. redwood or cedar “built-ins” or the moulding isn’t now painted over several coats (with lead or oil-based paint) or it has a modern kitchen.
If the decedent paid $447K for the property in 2002 and put $35K down, her orig. loan was for $412K. That is a very small downpayment and she would have very likely had PMI payments as well. Either she was able to make the payments sporadically enough over the years to stave off foreclosure or refinanced and/or heloc’d the property to enable her to keep making the payments. Her troubles hanging on probably began PRIOR to her marketing the property at the peak. Greed or being overmortgaged and/or otherwise liened, along with possibly being ill, kept her from reducing the price at the “peak” so she could get out from under her encumbrances.
ParticipantIf I was going into the business of making “bridge loans” to buyers of property that can’t qualify to purchase until a certain event happens (i.e. sale of property they already own), no matter WHAT the level of leverage, I would invest only on the following conditions:
1. The collateral would be something I would want to own for the long haul just in case I couldn’t sell it;
2. I would first pencil out the trustees fees before deciding how much to lend, in case I had to foreclose;
3. The collateral would be VERY locally situated in case I found myself having to manage it (i.e. apt. bldg/commercial);
4. If the collateral was multi-family or commercial, I would first examine the ACTUAL LEASES and RENT RECEIPTS of the SELLER before deciding how much to lend;
5. I would examine the transfer disclosure statement and insist the borrower provide me with an inspection report from HIS/HER inspector. If the borrower sought me out before inspection and I was interested in making the loan, I would accompany the inspector.
6. I would stick with making loans ONLY on property located in areas I know well and was intimately familiar with.
I’m sure you are all aware of the many things that could go wrong which would prevent a borrower seeking a C,D paper/hard-money/bridge loan from performing on their end, no matter how good of a job or credit report they currently have.
ParticipantIf I was going into the business of making “bridge loans” to buyers of property that can’t qualify to purchase until a certain event happens (i.e. sale of property they already own), no matter WHAT the level of leverage, I would invest only on the following conditions:
1. The collateral would be something I would want to own for the long haul just in case I couldn’t sell it;
2. I would first pencil out the trustees fees before deciding how much to lend, in case I had to foreclose;
3. The collateral would be VERY locally situated in case I found myself having to manage it (i.e. apt. bldg/commercial);
4. If the collateral was multi-family or commercial, I would first examine the ACTUAL LEASES and RENT RECEIPTS of the SELLER before deciding how much to lend;
5. I would examine the transfer disclosure statement and insist the borrower provide me with an inspection report from HIS/HER inspector. If the borrower sought me out before inspection and I was interested in making the loan, I would accompany the inspector.
6. I would stick with making loans ONLY on property located in areas I know well and was intimately familiar with.
I’m sure you are all aware of the many things that could go wrong which would prevent a borrower seeking a C,D paper/hard-money/bridge loan from performing on their end, no matter how good of a job or credit report they currently have.
ParticipantIf I was going into the business of making “bridge loans” to buyers of property that can’t qualify to purchase until a certain event happens (i.e. sale of property they already own), no matter WHAT the level of leverage, I would invest only on the following conditions:
1. The collateral would be something I would want to own for the long haul just in case I couldn’t sell it;
2. I would first pencil out the trustees fees before deciding how much to lend, in case I had to foreclose;
3. The collateral would be VERY locally situated in case I found myself having to manage it (i.e. apt. bldg/commercial);
4. If the collateral was multi-family or commercial, I would first examine the ACTUAL LEASES and RENT RECEIPTS of the SELLER before deciding how much to lend;
5. I would examine the transfer disclosure statement and insist the borrower provide me with an inspection report from HIS/HER inspector. If the borrower sought me out before inspection and I was interested in making the loan, I would accompany the inspector.
6. I would stick with making loans ONLY on property located in areas I know well and was intimately familiar with.
I’m sure you are all aware of the many things that could go wrong which would prevent a borrower seeking a C,D paper/hard-money/bridge loan from performing on their end, no matter how good of a job or credit report they currently have.
ParticipantIf I was going into the business of making “bridge loans” to buyers of property that can’t qualify to purchase until a certain event happens (i.e. sale of property they already own), no matter WHAT the level of leverage, I would invest only on the following conditions:
1. The collateral would be something I would want to own for the long haul just in case I couldn’t sell it;
2. I would first pencil out the trustees fees before deciding how much to lend, in case I had to foreclose;
3. The collateral would be VERY locally situated in case I found myself having to manage it (i.e. apt. bldg/commercial);
4. If the collateral was multi-family or commercial, I would first examine the ACTUAL LEASES and RENT RECEIPTS of the SELLER before deciding how much to lend;
5. I would examine the transfer disclosure statement and insist the borrower provide me with an inspection report from HIS/HER inspector. If the borrower sought me out before inspection and I was interested in making the loan, I would accompany the inspector.
6. I would stick with making loans ONLY on property located in areas I know well and was intimately familiar with.
I’m sure you are all aware of the many things that could go wrong which would prevent a borrower seeking a C,D paper/hard-money/bridge loan from performing on their end, no matter how good of a job or credit report they currently have.
ParticipantIf I was going into the business of making “bridge loans” to buyers of property that can’t qualify to purchase until a certain event happens (i.e. sale of property they already own), no matter WHAT the level of leverage, I would invest only on the following conditions:
1. The collateral would be something I would want to own for the long haul just in case I couldn’t sell it;
2. I would first pencil out the trustees fees before deciding how much to lend, in case I had to foreclose;
3. The collateral would be VERY locally situated in case I found myself having to manage it (i.e. apt. bldg/commercial);
4. If the collateral was multi-family or commercial, I would first examine the ACTUAL LEASES and RENT RECEIPTS of the SELLER before deciding how much to lend;
5. I would examine the transfer disclosure statement and insist the borrower provide me with an inspection report from HIS/HER inspector. If the borrower sought me out before inspection and I was interested in making the loan, I would accompany the inspector.
6. I would stick with making loans ONLY on property located in areas I know well and was intimately familiar with.
I’m sure you are all aware of the many things that could go wrong which would prevent a borrower seeking a C,D paper/hard-money/bridge loan from performing on their end, no matter how good of a job or credit report they currently have.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.
Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.
It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.[/quote]
If NOS was dated 12/31/09, then that $439K reflects ONLY the payments, late charges and trustees fees due at that time. Since then, these items have increased by $21K, to $460K, or thereabouts, thus, the opening bid on the steps.
Why do you think there is/was equity in the property before the trustees sale?? Have you examined the title for any creditors claims, judgment liens, government liens or tax liens or taxes due on the property?
Does the property have a large lot, over 2200 sf, a permitted “granny-flat” or have historical significance?
$439K or $460K sounds like a large loan to me for North Park unless the property is large and/or has a Mills Act contract on it.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.
Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.
It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.[/quote]
If NOS was dated 12/31/09, then that $439K reflects ONLY the payments, late charges and trustees fees due at that time. Since then, these items have increased by $21K, to $460K, or thereabouts, thus, the opening bid on the steps.
Why do you think there is/was equity in the property before the trustees sale?? Have you examined the title for any creditors claims, judgment liens, government liens or tax liens or taxes due on the property?
Does the property have a large lot, over 2200 sf, a permitted “granny-flat” or have historical significance?
$439K or $460K sounds like a large loan to me for North Park unless the property is large and/or has a Mills Act contract on it.
-
AuthorPosts
