[SDEngineer]

[quote=nostradamus]I guess it’s subjective what one calls a condo, for me if you pay an HOA and share any walls and share common areas, that’s a condo. Sellers/owners/agents use nice euphemisms like “duplex” or “townhome” but… these are subsets of the definition of condo.

They are very nice condos but the houses are in the same locale, bigger, better, and cheaper. IMO.[/quote]

Actually, my mother (an ex-realtor) corrected me on this. There is in fact a substantial legal difference between a townhome/twinhome and a condo.

In a townhome, you own the house fee-simple, meaning you also own the land under it – even though you have an HOA taking cared of the shared elements. Unlike a condo, though, you actually own the entire home, and the land underneath it – so the owner, and not the HOA, is responsible for their exterior walls, their roofs, and so on. There are more shared elements than a SFR, but a lot fewer than a condo, where the HOA takes care of the exterior roofs, the walls, etc.

Theoretically, this would place more of the burden on home maintenance of the exterior variety on the individual townhome owners, and thus makes it less likely the HOA would levy large assessments for upkeep, but I have no idea how that plays out in real life.

Of course, there are a lot of “townhome” developments that are really condos – just have to check to see whether it’s a condo ownership, or a fee-simple ownership to tell which type you’re looking at.

[SDEngineer]

SDTransplant –

That is true, but the comparable houses that were mentioned in the post are not the 1970’s houses nearby. The houses mentioned as comparables in the post are post-1990’s real SFR’s built along the same stretch of road (i.e. clearly superior – same age, same quality, larger sq. footage, and standalone as opposed to twinhome construction).

[SDEngineer]

SDTransplant –

That is true, but the comparable houses that were mentioned in the post are not the 1970’s houses nearby. The houses mentioned as comparables in the post are post-1990’s real SFR’s built along the same stretch of road (i.e. clearly superior – same age, same quality, larger sq. footage, and standalone as opposed to twinhome construction).

[SDEngineer]

SDTransplant –

That is true, but the comparable houses that were mentioned in the post are not the 1970’s houses nearby. The houses mentioned as comparables in the post are post-1990’s real SFR’s built along the same stretch of road (i.e. clearly superior – same age, same quality, larger sq. footage, and standalone as opposed to twinhome construction).

[SDEngineer]

SDTransplant –

That is true, but the comparable houses that were mentioned in the post are not the 1970’s houses nearby. The houses mentioned as comparables in the post are post-1990’s real SFR’s built along the same stretch of road (i.e. clearly superior – same age, same quality, larger sq. footage, and standalone as opposed to twinhome construction).

[SDEngineer]

SDTransplant –

That is true, but the comparable houses that were mentioned in the post are not the 1970’s houses nearby. The houses mentioned as comparables in the post are post-1990’s real SFR’s built along the same stretch of road (i.e. clearly superior – same age, same quality, larger sq. footage, and standalone as opposed to twinhome construction).

[SDEngineer]

“Wishing price” vs. “Market price” I’d say.

Neither of the condos are short sales or REO’s. Both of the houses are (one is a REO, one is a short sale that apparently has already gotten a negotiated approval).

At least one of the condo’s appears to have it’s valuation directly set by what will get the owner out of his/her mortgage without sustaining a heavy loss (the 2nd condo was bought at a purchase price of 500K last year – assuming a fairly minimal downpayment, the owner is just barely above water at the asking price, is probably trying to get out from under catching that very sharp knife). Not sure about the other, since it was apparently purchased last in the mid 300’s, but perhaps they set their price based on the nearest neighborhood comp – which would be condo #2’s wishing price. Or, of course, it could also be that they HELOC’d the heck out of the home, and 475K is the number that gets them out of debt without resorting to a short or foreclosure.

Based on Mira Mesa market conditions (and the higher quality comps you located), I truly doubt either of those condos gets sold without taking at least another 75K haircut, and probably more.

[SDEngineer]

“Wishing price” vs. “Market price” I’d say.

Neither of the condos are short sales or REO’s. Both of the houses are (one is a REO, one is a short sale that apparently has already gotten a negotiated approval).

At least one of the condo’s appears to have it’s valuation directly set by what will get the owner out of his/her mortgage without sustaining a heavy loss (the 2nd condo was bought at a purchase price of 500K last year – assuming a fairly minimal downpayment, the owner is just barely above water at the asking price, is probably trying to get out from under catching that very sharp knife). Not sure about the other, since it was apparently purchased last in the mid 300’s, but perhaps they set their price based on the nearest neighborhood comp – which would be condo #2’s wishing price. Or, of course, it could also be that they HELOC’d the heck out of the home, and 475K is the number that gets them out of debt without resorting to a short or foreclosure.

Based on Mira Mesa market conditions (and the higher quality comps you located), I truly doubt either of those condos gets sold without taking at least another 75K haircut, and probably more.

[SDEngineer]

“Wishing price” vs. “Market price” I’d say.

Neither of the condos are short sales or REO’s. Both of the houses are (one is a REO, one is a short sale that apparently has already gotten a negotiated approval).

At least one of the condo’s appears to have it’s valuation directly set by what will get the owner out of his/her mortgage without sustaining a heavy loss (the 2nd condo was bought at a purchase price of 500K last year – assuming a fairly minimal downpayment, the owner is just barely above water at the asking price, is probably trying to get out from under catching that very sharp knife). Not sure about the other, since it was apparently purchased last in the mid 300’s, but perhaps they set their price based on the nearest neighborhood comp – which would be condo #2’s wishing price. Or, of course, it could also be that they HELOC’d the heck out of the home, and 475K is the number that gets them out of debt without resorting to a short or foreclosure.

Based on Mira Mesa market conditions (and the higher quality comps you located), I truly doubt either of those condos gets sold without taking at least another 75K haircut, and probably more.

[SDEngineer]

“Wishing price” vs. “Market price” I’d say.

Neither of the condos are short sales or REO’s. Both of the houses are (one is a REO, one is a short sale that apparently has already gotten a negotiated approval).

At least one of the condo’s appears to have it’s valuation directly set by what will get the owner out of his/her mortgage without sustaining a heavy loss (the 2nd condo was bought at a purchase price of 500K last year – assuming a fairly minimal downpayment, the owner is just barely above water at the asking price, is probably trying to get out from under catching that very sharp knife). Not sure about the other, since it was apparently purchased last in the mid 300’s, but perhaps they set their price based on the nearest neighborhood comp – which would be condo #2’s wishing price. Or, of course, it could also be that they HELOC’d the heck out of the home, and 475K is the number that gets them out of debt without resorting to a short or foreclosure.

Based on Mira Mesa market conditions (and the higher quality comps you located), I truly doubt either of those condos gets sold without taking at least another 75K haircut, and probably more.

[SDEngineer]

“Wishing price” vs. “Market price” I’d say.

Neither of the condos are short sales or REO’s. Both of the houses are (one is a REO, one is a short sale that apparently has already gotten a negotiated approval).

At least one of the condo’s appears to have it’s valuation directly set by what will get the owner out of his/her mortgage without sustaining a heavy loss (the 2nd condo was bought at a purchase price of 500K last year – assuming a fairly minimal downpayment, the owner is just barely above water at the asking price, is probably trying to get out from under catching that very sharp knife). Not sure about the other, since it was apparently purchased last in the mid 300’s, but perhaps they set their price based on the nearest neighborhood comp – which would be condo #2’s wishing price. Or, of course, it could also be that they HELOC’d the heck out of the home, and 475K is the number that gets them out of debt without resorting to a short or foreclosure.

Based on Mira Mesa market conditions (and the higher quality comps you located), I truly doubt either of those condos gets sold without taking at least another 75K haircut, and probably more.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]

SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]

I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).

This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]

SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]

I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).

This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]

SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]

I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).

This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]

SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]

I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).

This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.

[Author]

Posts