November 18, 2009
Sold Together For $9M in '07, Purchased Apart For $6,766,001 In '09
As we wrote two weeks ago:
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withdrawn.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).
The sale of the 2157 Green Street lot has since closed escrow with a reported contract price of $3,700,000, so make that a total purchase price of $6,766,001 for the two District 7 pieces that sold together for $9,000,000 in 2007 prior to the added value of the lot split.
And while our reader was correct with respect to the auction of 2151 Green Street, our sources say the buyer wasn’t the seller in 2007 (but did just buy the lot as well).
Just to be clear, the six-bedroom, five-bath and 6,800 square foot Cow Hollow home which had been "remodeled" and then returned to the market in 2008 asking $10,950,000 (reduced to $7,350,000 in 2009) sold at auction for $3,066,001 four weeks ago.
∙ The 2151 Green Street Scoop: Wait For It… [SocketSite]
∙ 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]
First Published: November 18, 2009 2:45 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
My usually reliable source at the steps was mistaken or misheard who the bidder was.
The trustee's deed for the house recorded Nov 4 for the $1 over.
The grant deed for the lot was recorded Nov 6, but the transfer tax was recorded in a separate sheet (undisclosed) so I couldn't verify the 3,700,000 price.
[Editor's Note: No worries, you got the important part right, and thanks for plugging in.]
Posted by: whatever at November 18, 2009 3:16 PM
I noticed this had finally made it up on the SF Recorder's site on Monday, but the Belli's kept me otherwise engaged. The owner of record is "9496 Trust"; this guy is also on the deed, so either he's an owner, or more likely, a trustee. As he's a RE lawyer, I assume he'll be helpful with any color of title issues.
Notice they took title on APN 0557-061 (lot 2157 Green) and APN 0557-020 (trustee's deed for house). Don't count the old owner out yet (although the sale of 2157 Green probably means he has washed his hands). Anyone know how to find out the owner (trustor) of "9496 Trust"? Do trusts need to be registered, or do they only exist as contracts?
Posted by: EBGuy at November 18, 2009 3:50 PM
EBGuy, I don't know what's going on with the lot numbers, but the deed of trust for the house that foreclosed described the property as lot 020, so the trustee's sale naturally sold lot 020. There was a lot line adjustment in the meantime (DPW website says it recorded in Nov 2008, and which would have required lender's consent). I don't think new lot numbers are issued with LLA, but maybe they did here (lot 019 = 062, and 020 = 061 ?). When the lot was sold, the description in the grant deed says lots 061 and portion of 062 (formerly 019).
Posted by: whatever at November 18, 2009 4:47 PM
Green St: clearly no longer part of the Real SF.
Posted by: anon at November 18, 2009 9:41 PM
Green St: clearly no longer part of the Real SF.
What is your true opinion?
Posted by: anonn at November 18, 2009 9:57 PM
"What is your true opinion?"
That this property just sold for 25% less than it did a couple of years ago.
Posted by: diemos at November 18, 2009 10:39 PM
The Trustee is usually the owner and I don’t see any new open deeds of trusts (yet) so there is no trustor. The original owner was the seller (grantor) on the deed for 2157 Green.
I still think there is more to this story… The Trustee Sale underbid must be justified as fair market value. I think that applies even if the note was resold and discounted.
Does the house sale @ 3M become a valid Comp?
“25% less than 2 years ago” doesn’t seem that uncommon nowadays.
I was told that the Landmark REO 2799 Pacific (10M) was being marketed for less than 7M.
2100 Vallejo has just been reduced to $13.5M, once asking $25M, I wonder if Versailles across the street would consider a significant price reduction.
Wish I had a Crystal Ball to tell me where home prices will be in 2012.
Posted by: SL123 at November 19, 2009 12:25 AM
SL123, where did you hear 2799 was being marketed for sub $7M? No chance. Let me say it again. No Chance.
Posted by: eddy at November 19, 2009 8:56 AM
For those of you that don't remember, this property on Green had been for sale off-market for at least a decade prior to the 07 sale for around 11 million. It's just no one was stupid enough to buy it, but it only takes one. In this case, a foreign investor with questionable access to funding and a bizarre get-rich-quick scheme - not to mention a one way ticket back to Iran.
The lot probably can't be developed at this point. Cow Hollow Association is aware of this sale and will probably take an active position on whatever is proposed, if anything. Personally, I consider the sale price of almost 6.8 million for the combined lots almost laughably huge. Ann Getty bought the Sherman Mansion in 03 or 04 for less, and that's an infinitely superior property. 2151 still needs millions in repairs (not to mention undoing what was done) and you'll always have to take an elevator just to get to your front door.
Posted by: sleepiguy at November 19, 2009 11:39 AM
A Fund Manager who usually purchases blocks of REOs told me but this can only be regarded as rumor. I also don’t know if it was packaged with other assets.
I reacted the same way as you are but after thinking about it, I realize that it may not be that far fetched. They have already tried unsuccessfully to sell it at 10M. REOs are often sold far below market value but what is market value when there are no comps. All genuine indicators foretell that our economy is heading for much harsher times and banks are continuously failing at an alarming rate. 2799 Pacific is a lot of space and maintenance with no view. I understand the renovation is magnificent and costly but like 2090 Vallejo; one cannot add the personal cost amount to the real value of the property.
The only way to call this bluff (like bidding 3M on 2151 Green) would be to go the Bank with financials and make a cash offer for $6.98M.
Sleepy, I agree about the lot, it will never get built as planned and will revert to being a lot without permits. I’m not certain now if 3M cash for the house is a good investment. This had to be an inside deal by someone very familiar with the property because the lot and house could never be sold to 2 separate owners without subjecting themselves to serious litigation.
Posted by: SL123 at November 19, 2009 2:18 PM