It’s a plugged-in tipster that notes 3731 Fillmore Street #2 is back on the MLS. If the address sounds familiar it should. As we wrote in February:
Asking $699,000 when originally marketed by Brown & Co. but then re-listed, reduced and withdrawn at $549,000 last month, 3731 Fillmore Street #2 is back on the MLS with a “list price” of $295,888 (from the listing: “Must sell by tuesday, february 24th. Auctioned to the highest bidder at the property.”).
As you might recall the highest bidder came in at $410,000 but the seller declined to sell (apparently “must” means something else in listing land). So it’s once again listed by Brown & Co. and back to asking $549,000.
As previously noted, 3731 Fillmore #6 sold for $710,000 in October of 2008 and four other units remain availble in the six-unit building.
∙ Listing: 3731 Fillmore Street #2 (1/1) – $549,000 (TIC) [MLS]
∙ Now Up For Auction In The Marina (And Originally Asking $699,000) [SocketSite]
∙ A Plugged-In Reader Calls Shenanigans And Sets The Record Straight [SocketSite]
Wow, there are some serious Alice in Wonderland distortions in that set of photos on MLS. Check out photos 5 and 6. They are of the same living room, right ? Yet the dimensions look different.
And for a good laugh, check out the new, mightier, taller Golden Gate Bridge in #17.
What a joke. I can’t believe this stuff is legal. The videos of the auction process shown here last time we talked about this property were absolutely classic.
lolcat, it likely is not legal. Auctions operate under specific rules. Given the advertising and video of this auction, I believe the organizers of the auction didn’t know what they were doing. The highest bidder has a good lawsuit against the owners. The owners likely have a good lawsuit against their agent. It’s nasty all around.
Other than the Godzilla photochop from way back when… these 3731 Fillmore posts are my favorite. I cannot believe Brown & Co. would still represent these units after the shenanigans with that last auction.
i’m confused by bathroom shots 12 & 13. the listing says 1 bath but it looks like 2 different sinks in the photos at ostensibly the same angle. are there 2 sinks or 2 alcoves in tne 1 bath? or maybe 1 of the pics is from another unit.
exactly eddy. i have no idea why any “professional” would want to be re-associated with this property. also if i were the seller i would try to wipe the slate as clean as possible before relisting. makes me wonder if the agent was ever actually out of the picture during the auction fiasco.
since people at the auction were generally pissed off at the whole process i’d guess the true market value is a bit over $410, but who knows, that was 40+ days ago.
again, imho the biggest issue with this building is what’s gonna happen to the other 4 unoccupied, unsold units. remember, even with fractional loans you don’t know who you’re getting into bed with.
So who regulates auctions? I can’t believe they would get away with this. [Removed by Editor]
andyc, I think you’re right. These are two different bathrooms.
would be funny iof he ended up getting less than the $410k offerred.
I think it will definitely sell sub $500K
did we ever find out what the “reserve price” was at the auction?
A comment about the auction process and company … The listing agent was a guy named Brody Kroll or Statewide Real Estate Auctions. Brody (and his team of agents) is a good guy, but he is not too choosy in the people that he will represent. His strategy is to claim as much inventory as possible, throw as much proverbial sh&t against the wall, and see what sticks. That said, their auction format is completely BS. They do a minimum of marketing, only attracting bidders by pricing the property on MLS way under market. At auction, their unrealistic sellers typically have pipe dream numbers for reserve prices. I personally witnessed Brody run an auction, get a few bids, then pull the shill bid out of the top secret envelope. Then, shocking, none of the real bidders bid above the shill bid. And it gets better. Even after the hammer drops, and the auction ends, the seller is not obligated to accept the highest offer. Kroll then shops the high bid to the other bidders after the close, and even after a package is made to the bank (in the event of a short sale), will accept higher bids. Bottom line, it is a marketing ploy. Clever, yes. Misrepresentation, probably not. Binding in any way, absolutely not. Property can be acquired through their format. But ask a lot of questions and be prepared for the auction never to result in a sale.
Copernicus,
That’s an interesting definition of “good guy”. But thanks for getting his name in the thread, so people who don’t read the earlier discussion can avoid him.
this guy sounds like a real winner. kinda makes hack ‘its always a good time to buy’ realaturds seem noble by default.
FYI- as I stated the last time this property was featured on SS, the dufus auction ‘compnay’ has NOTHING to do with Brown & Co. They weren’t involved with the auction, and matter of fact, were very much against it.
45yoH, you cannot claim that they were not involved in the auction. They are the agent of record, were present at the auction, consulted before and after the auction and are now listing it again. Please.
eddy-
[Removed by Editor] why would brown & co agree to let another broker come in and take the commission on the sale? last i checked, realtors only get paid when they sell something. so, if the auction genius gets the sale, brown is outta luck (and $). from my understanding on the last thread, the seller insisted on trying the auction.
Jimmy- that is what happened. Brown & Co were against it from the get go. This is all water under the bridge anyways, especially anyone that did not bid.
Would anyone like to comment on my simple conspiracy theory:
Broker for a multi-unit TIC arranges for the sale (or active contingent status) of one unit in the building using “credits” back to the buyer, or some other form of reimbursement, so that the official printed sale price is artificially high. Then the broker uses this fresh “comp” to market other units in the building.
In a past thread someone swore that the one unit in this building sold at arms length. That could be true even if there were substantial “credits” or dare I say kickbacks to the buyer. I’m not at all saying it happened in this situation but it is something to think about and I have noticed other similar buildings in which one unit miraculously sells quickly for a high price and the other units languish.
thoughts?
What sort of credits are you talking about in your hypothetical? Seemingly you are talking about a lot of money. I’ve seen this on here before. People do not understand the scrutiny title companies have been under for the last couple years. Nowadays they cannot even host disclosures online, give out bottles of wine at closing, or even serve free coffee in their lobbies. The “big credits back” at close thing needs to be for a reason. Like termites or something. Doing it for the broker? To make the other properties seem more attractive? Who benefits more there? The broker, or the seller of the property? You are conflating motives. (And maybe reading too much Socketsite.)
The S.S. Brown is taking on water and listing
heavily. Anybody noting the mumbo jumbo marketing
on their Anza St. TIC’s? Their satellite office
on Lombard Street already has cobwebs.
Too busy-it is not
gee franklimpi; you sure are ‘in the know.’ i just checked mls and they have a ton of listings (as other usual suspects tri, mcguire, sothebys…). when you say ‘taking on water,’ are you referring to something specific or just trashing a brokerage because you are a hater in general? and what specific ‘mumbo jumbo’ are you referring to on anza? please explain. i am sure your insight will enlighten everyone.
Even after the hammer drops, and the auction ends, the seller is not obligated to accept the highest offer.
My specific knowledge of California auction law is limited, but this goes completely against what I was taught in law school. If an auction is advertised without notice of a reserve, the highest bidder at the close of the auction has formed a contract to purchase the item at the last highest bid. Yes, the seller is obligated to accept the highest offer. Granted, I didn’t look very hard, but I didn’t see any mention of reserve on the advertisements.
i was at the auction as were many others that posted in last 2 threads. it was clearly stated on the bidding form that there was a reserve price that needed to be met but the reserve would not be disclosed until after the auction. of course i did not read the form and it appears many others didn’t read it either. the autctioneer also clearly stated prior to the auction that if the “secret” reserve wasn’t met the seller could walk.
the real problem was that no one knew this before they showed up. big time waster. so while probably legal, the staged “auction” unfortunately marred the names of Statewide Auction, Tim Brown, the seller, and anyone else involved with this property.
That $710k price still seems rediculous. Was that a sham to try and set a price range for these units via smoke n mirrors?
franklimpi,
what is wrong with the anza street marketing?
This real estate auction scenario does sound like a real scham. Why have an auction unless the seller is “reasonable” with their reserve price. And ability for the seller to shop around the best auction price after the hammer drops is contrary to the point of an auction.
Anyhow, regarding brokerages. And I am a local Realtor. Brown is a fine company, most are fine companies. However many are trying to market a product as best they can in a market that is not terribly interested in the product. That being TIC units….especially if not able to convert to condos because of number of units or ellis history. It is tough to market an overpriced product that has somewhat limited appeal and is hard to finance.
I have no specific story and if I did it would not be appropriate to share confidential details. But I think there are a number of investor/flipper/ellis and TIC type projects out there with sellers in deep do-do. The market does not support their exit prices projected in their initial analysis of buy, “de-tenant”, fix, stage, sell, go to the bank.
If the seller has other assets in real estate, stock, savings, etc, and the TIC building is not a primary residence, they will be forced to come to the closing table with a check from their bank instead of taking a check to the bank. A bank will not negotiate a short sale, and will push the seller to liquidate (possibly a principal residence) to make up the loan balance. Dump the units, be negative several hundred thousand, and be forced to sell everything you have to come clean with the banks.
Not a pretty picture. There is no plan B if you have ellis acted.
Like buying Google at $700 a share on margin, but worse!
Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.
and of course….”now is a great time to buy!” Just not for everyone, and at the right price.
no one’s probably reading this anymore but a second unit in this building just hit the mls.
cuanto amigo?
#5 in the building was asking $635k for a top floor unit and it’s in contract. Whatever the price it’s far higher than their failed auction.
#5 just sold for 635k
That sounds about as on the level as the initial sale fo $700K+. If there were buyers out there at $635K, why did they go through the auction charade?
Cause the auction was in February and someone that was busy skiing or wintering in Arizonia or Florida came back to SF and decided to throw some of their recent stock market gains down the RE rabbit hole. It could be a conspiracy or it could be that someone just overpaid. I usually assume stupidity before conspiracy.
IMO if Unit 5 stays “active contingent” for an unusually long time, it’s conspiracy. If it closes then it’s stupidity.
since #5 is the best location in the building it still makes $710 for the lower front unit stupider.
I’d be curious to know how the #5 buyer feels about not knowing 4 of his other future TIC partners and whether their units will be owner occupied or rented (if they can be. not sure if this building was Ellised but don’t think so).