[feraina]

Our local elementary school in LJ, Torrey Pines Elementary, will enroll new students within the boundary any time of the year — thé principal emphasized that when we toured. They said they cannot predict class size and configuration until September because people can enroll anytime and the school has to take them. It sounded like all public schools are like this. It’s one of the three elementary schools in La Jolla and rates near the top of all San Diego unified schools. The western most strip of UTC is in an optional enrollment area that is zoned to Torrey pines as well. Climate: we live in LJ Shores, which for me is plenty warm enough in the summer and not too cold in the winter. I don’t find we have too many overcast days. Definitely cooler here than eastern Mira Mesa where my parents live, which I find too hot. My parents want to move further west for that reason. Poshness: I guess there are posh people here but also plenty of families who live in UCSD student or faculty housing who are all zoned here, as well as parents who work for the extensive UCSD healthcare system/medical school. We’re not posh people ourselves. 🙂

San Diego Unified is planning a full time reopening in the fall but needs additional federal funding for the spring, because of extra cost involved in making schools safe — if that doesn’t come it plans to go full distance learning in the spring. But the second wave might send everyone home by then anyway.
Del Mar Union is planning full reopening for the whole school year.

Btw I saw a 3BD house with peek ocean view for rent in downtown LJ (Zoned to LJ Elementary) today (Zillow) for $4000/month. Might be a bit much for your budget but very good deal for LJ! For well priced furnished rentals try sabbaticalhomes.com — mainly academics renting to each other when they go on sabbatical for a year. We’ve had good experiences with it. There are also some non academics there as renters and landlords.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

[feraina]

Very interesting! Does this mean the next generation of Chinese leaders will include a lot more women? 🙂

[feraina]

Very interesting! Does this mean the next generation of Chinese leaders will include a lot more women? 🙂

[feraina]

Very interesting! Does this mean the next generation of Chinese leaders will include a lot more women? 🙂

[feraina]

Very interesting! Does this mean the next generation of Chinese leaders will include a lot more women? 🙂

[feraina]

Very interesting! Does this mean the next generation of Chinese leaders will include a lot more women? 🙂

[feraina]

So yes, according to SDR we only knew that he wasn’t officially in default.

But I talked to him in person, and he said he hasn’t missed any yet, but he will probably be soon to be considered for a re-fi.

I didn’t bring up his generosity toward his soon-to-be-ex-wife to worry about his welfare needlessly, but as circumstantial evidence that he is a nice person (as he has been to me since I first met him, in terms of the flexibility of the lease in various ways that I requested).

[feraina]

So yes, according to SDR we only knew that he wasn’t officially in default.

But I talked to him in person, and he said he hasn’t missed any yet, but he will probably be soon to be considered for a re-fi.

I didn’t bring up his generosity toward his soon-to-be-ex-wife to worry about his welfare needlessly, but as circumstantial evidence that he is a nice person (as he has been to me since I first met him, in terms of the flexibility of the lease in various ways that I requested).

[feraina]

So yes, according to SDR we only knew that he wasn’t officially in default.

But I talked to him in person, and he said he hasn’t missed any yet, but he will probably be soon to be considered for a re-fi.

I didn’t bring up his generosity toward his soon-to-be-ex-wife to worry about his welfare needlessly, but as circumstantial evidence that he is a nice person (as he has been to me since I first met him, in terms of the flexibility of the lease in various ways that I requested).

[feraina]

So yes, according to SDR we only knew that he wasn’t officially in default.

But I talked to him in person, and he said he hasn’t missed any yet, but he will probably be soon to be considered for a re-fi.

I didn’t bring up his generosity toward his soon-to-be-ex-wife to worry about his welfare needlessly, but as circumstantial evidence that he is a nice person (as he has been to me since I first met him, in terms of the flexibility of the lease in various ways that I requested).

[feraina]

So yes, according to SDR we only knew that he wasn’t officially in default.

But I talked to him in person, and he said he hasn’t missed any yet, but he will probably be soon to be considered for a re-fi.

I didn’t bring up his generosity toward his soon-to-be-ex-wife to worry about his welfare needlessly, but as circumstantial evidence that he is a nice person (as he has been to me since I first met him, in terms of the flexibility of the lease in various ways that I requested).

[feraina]

Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.

Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.

So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure. If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws… And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.

Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?

ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet. It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).

[feraina]

Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.

Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.

So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure. If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws… And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.

Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?

ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet. It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).

[feraina]

Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.

Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.

So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure. If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws… And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.

Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?

ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet. It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).

[feraina]

Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.

Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.

So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure. If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws… And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.

Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?

ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet. It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).

[Author]

Posts