[UCGal]

[quote=EmilyHicks]The question is, why buy at $425k and then immediately sell it at a loss?[/quote]
I’m not sure this happened.

Redfin’s sales history shows a sale on 11/30 for $405k. Sdlookup shows it as $425k. It had been listed at $425k.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/8990-Brentford-Ave-92126/home/4798406

What’s interesting is I looked at the grant deed recordings and found the following.

Kucan & Clark purchased the property on Sept 30th. The previous owners had had an NOD filed against them in May 2009, and NOT in June 2010. In other words they were headed towards foreclosure. It also appears they were going through divorce according to court records. That is probably the cause of some of their financial distress. (Divorce is expensive.)

I do not show any grant deed transfers for the 11/30/2010 date from K&C. Since redfin shows the same $405 price, I don’t know what is going on with that sale. I did not go looking at Clark or Kukan’s grant recordings… just the partnership.

I show a grant deed recorded on 1/6/2011 from K&C to (presumeably) the new owner.

I would take that $425k price on 11/30 and disregard it. It appears to be an error. Maybe one of the realtors can weigh in and explain it.

[UCGal]

[quote=EmilyHicks]The question is, why buy at $425k and then immediately sell it at a loss?[/quote]
I’m not sure this happened.

Redfin’s sales history shows a sale on 11/30 for $405k. Sdlookup shows it as $425k. It had been listed at $425k.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/8990-Brentford-Ave-92126/home/4798406

What’s interesting is I looked at the grant deed recordings and found the following.

Kucan & Clark purchased the property on Sept 30th. The previous owners had had an NOD filed against them in May 2009, and NOT in June 2010. In other words they were headed towards foreclosure. It also appears they were going through divorce according to court records. That is probably the cause of some of their financial distress. (Divorce is expensive.)

I do not show any grant deed transfers for the 11/30/2010 date from K&C. Since redfin shows the same $405 price, I don’t know what is going on with that sale. I did not go looking at Clark or Kukan’s grant recordings… just the partnership.

I show a grant deed recorded on 1/6/2011 from K&C to (presumeably) the new owner.

I would take that $425k price on 11/30 and disregard it. It appears to be an error. Maybe one of the realtors can weigh in and explain it.

[UCGal]

[quote=EmilyHicks]The question is, why buy at $425k and then immediately sell it at a loss?[/quote]
I’m not sure this happened.

Redfin’s sales history shows a sale on 11/30 for $405k. Sdlookup shows it as $425k. It had been listed at $425k.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/8990-Brentford-Ave-92126/home/4798406

What’s interesting is I looked at the grant deed recordings and found the following.

Kucan & Clark purchased the property on Sept 30th. The previous owners had had an NOD filed against them in May 2009, and NOT in June 2010. In other words they were headed towards foreclosure. It also appears they were going through divorce according to court records. That is probably the cause of some of their financial distress. (Divorce is expensive.)

I do not show any grant deed transfers for the 11/30/2010 date from K&C. Since redfin shows the same $405 price, I don’t know what is going on with that sale. I did not go looking at Clark or Kukan’s grant recordings… just the partnership.

I show a grant deed recorded on 1/6/2011 from K&C to (presumeably) the new owner.

I would take that $425k price on 11/30 and disregard it. It appears to be an error. Maybe one of the realtors can weigh in and explain it.

[UCGal]

Here’s an article about the guys who did it.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_7df22eb5-e300-587d-bbbe-30d92a5ae442.html

and their website(s)
http://wemitigateloss.myproptrackr.com/
http://www.problemsolved.us/
http://www.kucanandclark.com/

I got their names from the property tax records, then looked at the grant deed search to verify they’d sold a house on the date this house sold (1/6/2011)

What’s interesting is the sales history.
The house was purchased in 2001 for $267k
The short sale (I assume it was a short sale) was for $225… lower than the 2001 price, but if there were issues with the house – still in the realm of possibility.
Not sure if they put any money in between when they bought it and sold it… but they made some money.

[UCGal]

Here’s an article about the guys who did it.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_7df22eb5-e300-587d-bbbe-30d92a5ae442.html

and their website(s)
http://wemitigateloss.myproptrackr.com/
http://www.problemsolved.us/
http://www.kucanandclark.com/

I got their names from the property tax records, then looked at the grant deed search to verify they’d sold a house on the date this house sold (1/6/2011)

What’s interesting is the sales history.
The house was purchased in 2001 for $267k
The short sale (I assume it was a short sale) was for $225… lower than the 2001 price, but if there were issues with the house – still in the realm of possibility.
Not sure if they put any money in between when they bought it and sold it… but they made some money.

[UCGal]

Here’s an article about the guys who did it.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_7df22eb5-e300-587d-bbbe-30d92a5ae442.html

and their website(s)
http://wemitigateloss.myproptrackr.com/
http://www.problemsolved.us/
http://www.kucanandclark.com/

I got their names from the property tax records, then looked at the grant deed search to verify they’d sold a house on the date this house sold (1/6/2011)

What’s interesting is the sales history.
The house was purchased in 2001 for $267k
The short sale (I assume it was a short sale) was for $225… lower than the 2001 price, but if there were issues with the house – still in the realm of possibility.
Not sure if they put any money in between when they bought it and sold it… but they made some money.

[UCGal]

Here’s an article about the guys who did it.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_7df22eb5-e300-587d-bbbe-30d92a5ae442.html

and their website(s)
http://wemitigateloss.myproptrackr.com/
http://www.problemsolved.us/
http://www.kucanandclark.com/

I got their names from the property tax records, then looked at the grant deed search to verify they’d sold a house on the date this house sold (1/6/2011)

What’s interesting is the sales history.
The house was purchased in 2001 for $267k
The short sale (I assume it was a short sale) was for $225… lower than the 2001 price, but if there were issues with the house – still in the realm of possibility.
Not sure if they put any money in between when they bought it and sold it… but they made some money.

[UCGal]

Here’s an article about the guys who did it.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_7df22eb5-e300-587d-bbbe-30d92a5ae442.html

and their website(s)
http://wemitigateloss.myproptrackr.com/
http://www.problemsolved.us/
http://www.kucanandclark.com/

I got their names from the property tax records, then looked at the grant deed search to verify they’d sold a house on the date this house sold (1/6/2011)

What’s interesting is the sales history.
The house was purchased in 2001 for $267k
The short sale (I assume it was a short sale) was for $225… lower than the 2001 price, but if there were issues with the house – still in the realm of possibility.
Not sure if they put any money in between when they bought it and sold it… but they made some money.

[UCGal]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Djshakes]I don’t understand the vote regarding the commission members. They complied the report together but not all of them voted on it? The specifically word it in regards to being bi-partisan yet it was partisan in approval?[/quote]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/3/debt-panel-fails-test-vote/

Apparently it passed with a bipartison majority, but not the needed super majority. 11 of the 18 member commission voted for it.

The 7 that voted against it were bipartison… 3 republican elected officials, 3 democratic elected officials, and Andrew Stern, who is presumably a Dem since he was head of the SEIU in the past. (But I don’t know for sure… just a reasonable guess.)

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
the commission never issued a report.[/quote]

Huh?

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

This is the commissions website. You can see the report linked on the front page. It was issued and ignored.

I linked to the report in my previous post. It came from the commission, issued on Dec 1, 2010. It came after the co-chairs recommendation, which came in November 2010.

I’ll admit, I read more of the co-chairs recommendations, and that’s what I was thinking of when I said in the previous post that I thought the recommendations were good, albeit painful.

But a quick scan of the full commissions recommendations show it’s similar to the co-chairs list.

[Author]

Posts