2151 Green Street
Still listed on the San Francisco Association of Realtors’ MLS last week as an “active listing” despite a plugged-in reader’s report that it had actually sold at foreclosure auction two weeks ago, today the MLS listing for 2151 Green Street was…withdrawn.
And if our reader’s source is correct, the buyer at $3,066,001 was…the person who sold it to the foreclosed upon party along with the adjoining empty lot for $9,000,000 in 2007.
Oh, and the listing for said lot now known as 2157 Green Street just went pending (last asking $4,200,000).
Did someone just effectively short the vaunted District 7 residential real estate market in San Francisco and pocket a few million by doing so?
Reader Versus Realtor: Did 2151 Green Street Just Sell At Auction? [SocketSite]
But Hey, $550,000 Is Simply A Rounding Error To A Proper Industrialist [SocketSite]
Another District Seven Mansion Heads For Foreclosure (2151 Green) [SocketSite]
The Scoop On 2157 Green Street (Could You See The Foreshadowing?) [SocketSite]
San Francisco Real Estate Districts: Maps And Neighborhoods [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by HappyRenter

    Who said you couldn’t make money in Real Estate?

  2. Posted by eddy

    Let’s not forget the increased value associated with the formal lot split and approved plans. In any event, this is a great story. It’s up there with the still unsold Bourne Mansion story for most interesting story of the year. Maybe a good idea for a year end recap / vote?

  3. Posted by justme

    Nicely done, oh once and current owner.

  4. Posted by sleepiguy

    This really is one of the best stories of the year. Say what you want about SF real estate, but it’s rarely dull.

  5. Posted by Louis

    I didnt follow this deal. i wish i did. question for you all – why did not one else bid on this asset in forclosure? as it look like a huge windfall.
    people fixate on RE like almost nothing else.
    so why only one bid over reserve? any theories?

  6. Posted by Rincon Hill Billy


  7. Posted by StockBoySF

    BTW: I don’t think the “still unsold” Bourn Mansion is a story of the year. I’d agree that the “Bourn Mansion” story is a top story of the year, but not the fact that it’s unsold. That piece is just boring… it hasn’t been on the market that long. I can’t wait for the next story of the Bourn trilogy (we’ve seen the first, the second will be who and how much, the third will be what its final identity will be once it has been remade).

  8. Posted by ex SF-er

    so why only one bid over reserve? any theories?
    the best theory is that nobody else thought it was worth any more than that.

  9. Posted by DataDude

    If these properties were sold to a close friend or family member at a greatly reduced price (vs. market), the remaining value will be treated as a gift for tax purposes and taxed accordingly.
    For instance, I couldn’t sell my parents my $2 million market value home for $250,000, without the remaining $1,750,000 being treated like a gift, taxes for which I would need to cough up.
    Otherwise, family members could transfer real estate assets all the time this this way, sidestepping the IRS and FTB.
    I think some type of alarm will go off in the Assessor’s office when this one crosses his desk.

  10. Posted by ex SF-er

    I think some type of alarm will go off in the Assessor’s office when this one crosses his desk
    it was a foreclosure on the steps, wasn’t it?
    how can that be anything but arms-length? Unless there is a way to have a foreclosure without notifying anybody outside of your family?

  11. Posted by DataDude

    How can buyers find out about these foreclosure sales?
    Who advertises the auction? The bank? Maybe some LargeBank executive just bought prime real estate in D7 at bargain prices without any competition…
    Why didn’t the seller (bank?) just keep reducing the price in the MLS? Why such a drastic cut?

  12. Posted by Trip

    Why didn’t the seller (bank?) just keep reducing the price in the MLS? Why such a drastic cut?
    A couple of possible reasons. 1 — Incompetence. The foreclosing party and the listing agent failed to communicate. 2 — the lender who foreclosed was just one of many, and it got its balance through the sale. I actually think that is a decent possibility, and a junior lienholder bought the place to protect its interest. But it would be quite clever if the 2007 seller swooped in and bought his place back.

  13. Posted by Geo

    Why didn’t the seller (bank?) just keep reducing the price in the MLS? Why such a drastic cut?
    You are assuming the bank had a POA to do the listing etc. They may have had one, but if they did not; until the bank owns title via foreclosure, without a POA, the listing is the responsibility of the borrower/owner.

  14. Posted by bornnraised

    kudos to this guy hah

  15. Posted by EBGuy

    Don’t 1099 Me, Bro!
    Federal Government 0
    Speculator 1
    State of California 0.5
    The state, I believe, would be able to tax the mortgage debt forgiven (one time windfall); however, they (and the county) lose on the property tax revenue due to the much lower tax basis.
    In actuality, I think Trip’s junior lienholder scenario is the most likely. Oh, and the plot thickens, the lot (APN 0557-019) had a NOTS filed on Oct. 13 by BARYCLAY FINANCIAL GRP.

  16. Posted by dr. who

    From my discussions with the Assessors Office they can, and do in cases like these, consider sales price different than “market value”, and perhaps most importantly, their concept of “market value” is very different than what anyone reading SS would think (it’s basically distorted in their favor to get as much $$$ as possible).
    I’m 99% certain that the Assessor will not accept $3 million as the Prop 13 baseline value, and that the new owner will have to contest the Assessors “market value” assessment of something much closer to the current assessed value of $9.18 million. The new owner will likely get a temporary reduction from this, but it a.) won’t be $3,066,001, and b.) will only be temporary and not subject to the Prop 13 annual property tax increase limits, up to whatever they decide is the value.
    Sound illegal? It probably is, but they’ve been doing it. Expect some headlines on litigation regarding this in the future.

  17. Posted by questioning

    Question: how did the buyer learn about this auction?

  18. Posted by resp

    I can’t figure out if this is the house, the lot, or both that are now scheduled for auction again:
    11/4/2009 2:00:00 PM Address: 2151 GREEN ST. (AKA 2157 GREEN ST.)
    State: CA
    Zip: 94123
    County: San Francisco
    APN: 04-0557-019-01
    Sale Status: Sale Date 11/04/2009
    TS Number: 201057122
    ASAP Number: 3296282
    Notice of Sale Amt: $5,173,058.10
    Opening Bid Amt: 0
    Sold Amt: 0
    Sale Location: At the Van Ness Avenue entrance to City Hall, 400 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94101
    Trustee: PLM Lender Services, Inc-San Jose
    Trustee Phone#: (408)370-4030

  19. Posted by resp

    oh and i was completely wrong about the bourne mansion selling fast. does anyone know what happened? i know there were 3 offers the first week but as far as i know under $2.5M

  20. Posted by sleepiguy

    I think Ms. Van Upp is trying to forestall a sale, but I’m not 100% certain.

  21. Posted by EBGuy

    Here’s my WAG. BARCLAY FINANCIAL GROUP is the one who got “played” here. They have deeds of trust on both the lot and land on April 22, 2008. The $5,173,058.10 owed on the lot smells like a “construction loan” for Building Permit #200702134062 (est. cost $5million). Anybody want to guess what that money was used for? As LMRiM used to say, well played. Can’t wait for the records to get posted to the SF Recorder’s site (to find out how wrong we all are…)

  22. Posted by SL123

    IMHO, I believe that it was only the LOT that sold at auction which is being marketed at $4.2M. with approved plans and permits. (I suspect DBI Pay to Play also figures in here)
    Public Records show that the owner of the Lot and alleged high bidder at the 10-15-09 auction has always been the original owner who retained the LOT and sold only the HOME.
    This means that the Lot owner had the financial ability to stop the foreclosure but chose to purchase at auction most likely to erase all junior liens and attempt to get clean clear title to transfer sale of Lot with a profit (instead of paying off junior liens and expenses).
    This is why nobody bid at the auction. Any serious bidder requiring a 3+M Cashiers\Certified Check would do their research prior to bidding.
    Easy research would also tell them that the property’s history (both Lot and House) entails significant risk because a Trustee’s Deed to the properties may be subject to Litigation that could possibly reverse or tie up their property ownership and money for years. Puchasing a property like this without usual required Discloure Statements is also very risky.
    There are questionable double escrows and unrecorded Attorney Grant Deeds and Deeds of Trust. There are errors in the description of property address 2151 vs 2157 on the Public Notices. What’s with the 2 different APNs, one for the Recorder’s Office and separate APNs for the Loans?
    Trustee Sales are by law required to Protect the Beneficiary. They would not be able to auction a property so far below the recorded First Deed of Trust under present circumstances. The only way you can pick up Prime properties at bargain basement prices (3M for 9M Property) is only after the property becomes REO and you make a private deal with the Bank\Beneficiary or their absolute auctions after REO.
    The new Notice of Sale Amt: $5,173,058.10 for the House is somewhat enticing…

  23. Posted by EBGuy

    SL123, I implore you (as you seem to have better records access than some of us) to look at the parcel map locations (and street numbering) and resp’s post on this thread and the previous thread (right after you posted). I agree with everything you’ve said (regarding ownership and interests retained) except that I am pretty certain that the house (APN 0557-020) has already been foreclosed and the lot (APN 0557-019, 2157 Green) will go up for auction on November 4. For instance, notice that KAZEMZADEHDARBAN, MOSTAFA recieved a NOTS on 26-JUN-09 from QUALITY LOAN SVC CORP for APN 0557-020 (house). On the previous thread, Quality Loan Service Corporation is the trustee for the foreclosure on APN 0557-020 on Oct. 15. On that thread you said It appears that Party 1 sold the House to Party 2 on 11/09/2007. Party 2 took out a First Mortgage of $6,300,000.00. The SF Recorders Website shows that Party 2 is KAZEMZADEHDARBAN, MOSTAFA (the mortgage was with WaMu).
    I suppose, if There are errors in the description of property address 2151 vs 2157 on the Public Notices then all bets are off and SL123 could be correct.

  24. Posted by SL123

    You’re Right, it appears that APN 0557-020 which sold on 10-15-09 correlates to 0557-062 which is Party 2, Kazemzadehdarban Mostafa who bought the House with a $6,300,000. WaMu First Mortgage.
    I was just being practical because the opening bid appeared closer in price to the Original Owner’s (Nasser Sardad\ Hassan Kangarloo ) First Mortgage of $3,445,000.
    My records have still not been updated with a new Grant Deed, I think they have 15 days to record.
    I’ll try to access all the Open Deeds of Trust tomorrow.
    This may be a very Serious Bank Error (perhaps intentional) but a Trustee Deed under these circumstances is very risky. If the house does record as auctioned at $3,445,000., then the neighbors should be very concerned about their comparable property values.
    Was it Nasser Sardad, Hassan Kangarloo, or Kazemzadehdarban Mostafa that ran back to Iran?
    …There’s something happening here, What it is ain’t exactly clear. Perhaps Socket Site has stumbled upon the First Giant Real Estate Foreclosure Trustee Sale Scandal of the Year?
    As dr who said, “Expect some headlines on litigation regarding this in the future”

  25. Posted by EBGuy

    I was just being practical
    I hear ya. It makes no sense that someone from Barclays handed them $5 million for the lot, but it appears that’s what happened.
    Robert L. Shephard, an estate planning lawyer, is the agent of service for Pacific Palace LLC, so I’m guessing that Hassan Kangarloo and Nasser Sardad are in it for the long haul. That leaves Mostafa Kazemzadehdarban, the defaulter on 2151 Green, as the alleged runner…

  26. Posted by Davesf

    When we looked at this lot, there were some devils in the details. The 2151 green house elevator shaft actually spans over the lotline into the adjacent empty lot’. Any plans to do construction on either lot will require repairing this encroachment, making anything other than a major remodel quite challenging.

  27. Posted by Realtor

    It is unbelievable that our system has allowed these people (Kangarloo, Sardad, Mostafa) to collect millions of dollars from our banks and private money investors in re-finances and then they default. Hassan Kangarloo sold arms/equipment to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war and spent time in prison for it. Our system allowed him citizenship and thereafter he performed illegal real estate transactions. They only got sued one time by Fidelity Title for an illegal transfer. These people are crooks and our system should go after them! What the hell is wrong with our country?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *