Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=recordsclerk] . . . Good luck, I wouldn’t hold out for price corrections, you’ll miss the next boat. By the way prices are going up in all of San Diego, not just desirable locations.[/quote]
Absolutely spot on.
SDowner, prices are going up all over the South Bay, East County and even the traditionally “lower cost” areas such a Lemon Grove, Spring Valley, Encanto, Lomita, Paradise Hills, City Heights, etc, etc.
If I knew I was going to stay in SD County, needed a home for my family, was currently renting and had the wherewithal to purchase, I would be making offers on traditional sales with a 3-day window of acceptance/counter NOW.
A SD County buyer in this situation doesn’t have time to waste playing games for weeks/months making offers on unapproved short sales.
And don’t sweat the small stuff. Get your trusted home inspector on standby so they can perform quickly so you will know whether you want the property as is or need to counter the price early on.
Good luck to you, SDowner!
ParticipantSDowner, I’m not a “SR specialist” but am assuming you’re looking at resale homes.
I don’t see ANY neighborhoods in SD County going down in value in the coming years. Not even the ones within the severely-strapped and nearly bankrupt (if tax proceeds don’t get a lot higher VERY soon) PUSD.
H@ll, even the “Santee sold-comp study” I finished yesterday (in the under $350K properties) came out higher than $250 per sf!
In resale properties, improvements past owners completed run the gamut from cheesy to very high-end. There are so many variables determining what the ppsf would be in any given ‘hood or even single property, given that there are many room additions, second stories and pools installed in resale neighborhoods more than ten years old. In addition, SR has dozens of “2007 Cedar fire” rebuilds. Many of those rebuilds are custom and NOTHING like the tract home they replaced.
IMHO, it seems you are “overthinking” your purchase too much. You shouldn’t be “fixated” on ppsf. Just find a resale that works for you and make an offer!
Participant[quote=spdrun] . . . Unlike in CA, the NJ beach towns get deserted after mid-September, so it’s only bad driving in summer.[/quote]
This is because your elected officials at the time had the good sense NOT to approve several hundred thousand units of construction within ~4 miles of said `bucolic’ beaches.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Actually, SR-1 ends in San Juan Capistrano, north of Pendleton. The coast highway is local road S21 south of Oceanside 🙂
Said road is already 4-6 lanes in many places. It’s a lot faster than the equivalent road in my neck of the woods, which is generally two lanes with speed limits 40 mph max and a yield sign/crosswalk every block in some towns. Unlike in CA, the NJ beach towns get deserted after mid-September, so it’s only bad driving in summer.[/quote]
I’m sorry, you are correct, spdrun. S21 is SD’s “tributary spinoff” of the scenic coast hwy 1 thru Laguna Beach and points south.
This is all the more reason why it won’t be widened.
ParticipantI bought a kitchenaid 6 yrs ago which retailed for $1200 for $688 from “Sears scratch and dent” and very happy with it. It has a SS interior and three cycles I never use and is very, very quiet.
But I’m actually with flu. The older ones are better. If I were you, I’d look into a SS panel to put over your old one and call it a day 🙂
ParticipantHapps, it is actually SR-1 that runs through these coastal towns. (US-101 ends at I-10 in West LA.)
It is common in the 48 states when going thru state hwys or “State Routes” as we call them in Cali to slow down and stop in towns and small cities and proceed at 25 mph until out of the town. Those small cities that you mentioned were never set up to accomodate the amount of people going thru them now. That is why I-5 runs through there. There have always been businesses on both sides of this hwy and I don’t see that changing. Widening this route would destroy some of the these businesses and the “charm” that these towns are known for.
In decades past, these towns ended well west of I-5. Since so much has been approved to be built up there since about 1980, almost all of it east of I-5, these small cities have annexed that county land on the east side and grown exponentially in population. What your esteemed leaders at the time wanted to do was increase their tax base. So now the “gridlock” you are seeing on north-south roads, which used to only happen in July and August (prime beach season) is prevalent all year around due to way too many people living there :=0
That’s exactly what your elected officials wanted and so that is what they got.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I didn’t think that dual agency in the case of short sales was actually legal. I suppose the buyer could agree to represent themselves without the seller’s agent working for them.[/quote]
In CA, buyers MUST have representation when buying a property listed by a RE broker.
If they make an offer with the LA without representation, then the LA will be their agent or he/she will get another agent in his/her brokerage to “represent” them. This is still considered “dual agency.”
Participant[quote=spdrun]Why was the broker/seller allowed to keep the deposit, though? Seems that there would be a default expectation of a house being delivered vacant (unless otherwise stated), and the buyer should have been able to sue for the deposit back.[/quote]
There is no “default expectation.” It has to be marked or written on the offer to purchase form.
(Not sure, but the newer CAR forms may have a box to check for this.)
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Not saying it was right or anything,
Just saying there are things one needs to be aware and be wary of out there.
Especially with short sales, not every deal is hmmm how to put it,
Well there are things to be wary of especially with short sales.[/quote]I understand all these problems because the nature of a SS is adversarial and most of the SS “sellers” are deadbeats without a shred of integrity.
But that is where a competent buyer’s agent comes in, representing ONLY the interests of the buyer. Anyone who uses the listing agent of a SS for their buyer’s agent is a fool, IMHO.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I have also seen where the bank has cut a deal with the seller that they will be able to rent the place from the new owners,
The owners never saw the seller until the escrow inspection period was over, once the new owner have the first encounter (not going to say what transpired), but after that encounter, the buyers walked away from the deal and their deposit, making the agent very happy (the agent at that time this was the third deposit they got).[/quote]
Shoveler, a lender has no authority to do this. If the lender decides to approve a short sale where a provision in the contract was that the property be delivered vacant, then the lender agreed to that provision when they approved the offer.
They can’t rescind this part of the offer and agree to the price without countering the buyers (or having the “sellers” counter the buyers).
If this really happened, then the buyers didn’t ask for the property vacant (they had an incompetent agent).
If the lender countered the buyers (or the seller countered the buyers) with an occupancy provision for a period of weeks/months after COE (carryover occupancy or possession) and these buyers agreed and signed it without ever meeting the sellers, then they screwed themselves (again, with the help of an incompetent agent, IMO).
The Statute of Frauds in CA requires that all provisions of a RE contract (incl an offer to purchase or listing agreement) to be in writing.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=spdrun]Shouldn’t vacant delivery of the place be added as a condition of sale in the final contract? The above sounds almost criminal.[/quote]
Almost LOL, I guess they should have been carrying a bug,
Usually that is the case, but not in this case, the seller somehow got a deal with the bank to rent the place for a certain period of time (which was several months after close would have been).[/quote]
shoveler, if this is the case, these “sellers” had no business listing their property as a SS as it is currently not conveyable.
A conveyance means possession. Most investors buying rental properties want to take a fine-toothed comb over their new acquisition first and fix it up to rent and then vet their OWN tenants. They don’t want to be stuck with deadbeat short sellers who don’t have any agreement with them whatsoever.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Shouldn’t vacant delivery of the place be added as a condition of sale in the final contract? The above sounds almost criminal.[/quote]
Absolutely, and I have put that clause in ALL the Offers to Purchase I have prepared, whether for clients or for myself.
As a matter of fact, I have demanded that the property be vacant for the final walk-through, which is usually 3 businesses day before COE. This provision goes in the offer even if the property is owner-occupied.
These SS seller-clowns have had many months and even years to pack their stuff and get ready to move. There is no excuse for still occupying at the 11th hour or leaving it full of their junk for the new owner to deal with and pay to dispose of.
If the final walk-thru turns up occupants and/or their furniture, personal effects, debris, non-running vehicle, etc, it is time to walk from the transaction after you have already told them in writing what the terms of your purchase would be and they agreed to it.
Sometimes a buyer and/or their agent can see in advance that the owner/tenant situation is going to be problematic and can bail out of the deal before spending too much time and money on it.
If the LA/broker can’t even control the behavior of their (short) sellers (as it applies to successfully consummating a sale) than no one can and it is time to walk away.
Most short sellers, ESP those who are collecting rent and not paying their mortgage payments, have to be carefully reined in and controlled. If they refuse to get on board and “play ball” to the satisfaction of the LA, then the LA should drop them and let them foreclose.
Participant[quote=afx114]Clearly, desmond is Dorner.[/quote]
I don’t think so, afx. He’s posted photos of his kids on here :=0
ParticipantWOW, I just looked at the Google street view of the Strathmore property, which is at the end of a lo-o-o-ong cul-de-sac.
Since it is at the end, there are HUGE power lines running up one side of this large lot (the side that looks to be wide enough for RV access).
http://www.google.com/maps?q=10772%20Strathmore%20Dr,+92071
The power lines appear to be heading towards Miramar. Not sure if this is good or bad, but I personally wouldn’t want to live this close to them.
Of course, the listing photo cut off the house so they couldn’t be seen.
In “mousing around” this cul-de-sac, it seemed so utterly barren out there … a bit like living in AZ, I suspect :=0
edit: a chain-link fence to a (Sempra?) easement blocked off the NE corner of this property all the way up to the house. Thus, there is no RV access, even though the lot seems big enough for the opening.
I wonder if SDG&E compensated the original owner for the easement (who bought it new in May ’85 for $104,500 and sold it May ’05 for $450K, lol) and the current owners not only severely overpaid but receive nothing for this inconvenience :=0
-
AuthorPosts
