October 19, 2010

While The MLS Reports A "Sale," Public Records Report A Foreclosure

2041 Sacramento Facade

While a sale of 2041 Sacramento was reported on the MLS October 4 with a contract price of "$1,950,000," it would now appear the Pacific Heights condo overlooking Lafayette Park and Cathedral Hill was actually foreclosed upon with $1,880,877 owed.

Yesterday, the property returned to the market and MLS listed at $1,695,000.

And once again, the top-floor condo was purchased for $2,286,500 in June 2007, had been listed for $2,095,000 a little over a year ago (reduced to $1,999,000), and was relisted as a short sale for "$1,695,000" this past January.

∙ Listing: 2041 Sacramento (3/3) 2,503 sqft - $1,695,000 [MLS]
A Year Later An Apple Falls In Pacific Heights (2041 Sacaramento) [SocketSite]
An Apples To Apples (And Rather Prime) Update For 2041 Sacramento [SocketSite]
North To South (And Apples To Apples) From Atop 2041 Sacramento [SocketSite]

First Published: October 19, 2010 10:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

From the NEW listing:

Offers ONLY from NSP buyers, Municipalities, Non-profit organizations and Owner-occupants will be reviewed starting 10/26. Investor and all offers after 11/1.

Posted by: eddy at October 18, 2010 6:00 PM

Also from the new listing: "REO".

So the "sale" was actually a foreclosure!

HA ha, right smack dab in the middle of the "Real SF"!!!

I feel a song coming on...

Posted by: tipster at October 18, 2010 8:06 PM

My comment on the other thread where I indicated that these sellers would walk long before taking this kind of loss seems like it was accurate.

these owners aren't going to take the loss required to sell this at $1.5. I also think that $1.7 is too big a hit for these people to take. At some point, walking away makes sense.

Posted by: eddy at October 13, 2009 8:28 PM

Posted by: eddy at October 18, 2010 10:40 PM

Kudos to the listing agent, who created a "comp" at an above market price, getting a few more people to close in PH when in fact every pending buyer in the city would be better off walking from their deposits, only to buy the same place 10% cheaper in 6 months.

Posted by: tipster at October 19, 2010 9:22 AM

This is not the Real Sf. There never was such a thing anyway. Plus, in the Real SF people don't sell within 3 years. Not a data point.

Posted by: anon at October 19, 2010 9:34 AM

Kudos? Looks like garden variety fraud to me. Per redfin:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2041-Sacramento-St-94109/home/1536810

Doesn't appear to be any "sale" at $1,950,000 or at all, only a foreclosure at $1,880,877. And people wonder why realtors are held in such low esteem. Police yourselves a little, please. If you're going to sit idly by at such business-as-usual, then at least stop protesting the flaming that goes on with respect to this profession.

Posted by: A.T. at October 19, 2010 9:38 AM

man, I hope no-one used that $1.9M "sale" as a comp.

Klassy mildew stains on the top of that bay window.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 19, 2010 10:18 AM

My comment from the other thread:

What a scam by the lying listing agent! Nice try to up your own stats and to juke the overall stats. And he/she even put sale-pending to refer to the foreclosure process.

Oct 05, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed and bank-owned $1,880,877
Oct 04, 2010 Sold (MLS) $1,950,000

It looks like this was done, not on SFAR's MLS, but another local MLS. That's odd because it's actually not uncommon for some Bay Area agents to cross-list on SFAR while also doing so on a local MLS, but less common the other way (although it has been done for places like 311 Marina).

"This is not the Real Sf."

Keep telling yourself that.

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 19, 2010 10:56 AM

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 19, 2010 11:02 AM

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 19, 2010 11:19 AM

Btw, I called this in the earlier thread:

"2041 sold for 1.950."

I would also wait for the public records to confirm that info. The listing agent double-ended here.

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 4, 2010 11:36 AM

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 19, 2010 11:23 AM

OK, this looks like yet another "sale" that was really a foreclosure. The agents could be just listing the last loan amount as the "sale" price wen homes are foreclosed to create a false "comp".

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/201-Sansome-St-94104/unit-801/home/12277366

It was "sold" for $550K, two months ago. Now I realize that things happen and sometimes you need to sell right after you bought, but I dug a little deeper.

"Sold" two months ago to Aili Li, according to property shark. Redfin seems to have "omitted" the listing agent (never seen that happen before, funny how that works), but SFARMLS has the listing agent as Aili Li, working for Bay Real Estate and Mortgage, same as the last buyer.

So, although there could be a completely innocent explanation here, it looks to me like some of the "sales" may have been foreclosures put into the MLS as sales to hide the fact that foreclosures are happening and to set up falsely inflated comps.

It's possible that these "sales" are essentially the real estate agents that also had mortgage broker operations buying back loans with documentation problems, using a deed in lieu or some other quasi-foreclosure type arrangement, but at this point, I would be very leery of "comps" anywhere.

Posted by: tipster at October 19, 2010 10:53 PM

This should be reported. This never made sense to me even though I jumped on the bandwagon of the last sale. The last sale was just too high to make any sense, and this place is obviously never sold for $1.95 at this point.

As for the lower unit that just went pending-firm, I'd be a little upset if I used that comp as justification for my offer. Would not be surprised to see that fall out of firm contract given the recent update. I certainly hope the buyers agent is aware of this fact and alerts their client. The seller agent has an obligation here as well if they ever mentioned this 'sale' of 2041 to the buyer or buyer agent. It might be a required disclosure anyway even if this is not the case. I'd certainly want to know that there is a foreclosure sale in my 2 unit condo.

Posted by: eddy at October 20, 2010 6:36 AM

all knowing redfin
augur, aspersions are cast
from your seeing stream

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 20, 2010 2:20 PM

redfin and Adam
light on business as usual
by cozy realtors

Posted by: A.T. at October 20, 2010 2:45 PM

See public records
Telling a truthful story
Versus realtor lies

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 20, 2010 3:08 PM

Strange town MLS
What could be the endgame there
Bears don't give a hoot

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 20, 2010 3:17 PM

anon.ed/fluj asks
"What could be the endgame there"?
To mislead buyers

Posted by: A.T. at October 20, 2010 3:50 PM

Nice reply, A.T. What do you think this so-called endgame is, fluj, in your highly seasoned wisdom?

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 20, 2010 4:19 PM

Looks like an error
but a newt is more seasoned
Than your jumpy self

Posted by: anon.ed at October 20, 2010 6:32 PM

Editor-- do yout thing, keep this to real estate not a bunch of cr--p.

Posted by: givemeabreak at October 20, 2010 8:05 PM

"Editor-- do yout thing, keep this to real estate not a bunch of cr--p."

Did you object when
two, three? haters shouted words:
"scam, fraud, lie," unearned?

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 20, 2010 8:13 PM

fluj, so you think this was just "an error?" On what basis? He just accidentally recorded it as sold for $1.95mm rather than foreclosed and then accidentally touted it on his web site as so sold?

This industry would not be held in such low regard if this kind of fraud were condemned by this guy's peers rather than cheered or excused. You should be leading the charge against this behavior rather than defending it and mocking those who call out an obvious fraud.

Posted by: A.T. at October 21, 2010 7:04 AM

whose website, again?
not his. others, autofilled
that is obvious

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 21, 2010 8:29 AM

It is very typical of der fluj to try to dismiss bad realtor behavior poorly. Who really thinks this realtor was innocent and just made an honest error and then later had a colleague tout the sale of the agency on his website? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you...

I pointed out a few weeks ago that the "sale" of this house looked shady, and I was right. Instead of defending this kind of behavior, realtors should be trying to root it out of their ranks to make the profession better.

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 21, 2010 10:00 AM

you spend all day on
redfin, but don't know how these
fill sites work? doubt it.

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 21, 2010 10:24 AM

NETHICS (noun): Ethics according to the National Association of Realtors.

First and foremost, do not ever, ever, never under any circumstances give the slightest smidgeon of a passing thought that brokers fix
commission prices. Basically say whatever you want, other than "this is a typical charge for the industry" and certainly NOT "this is what
everyone charges".

Secondly, never ever under any circumstances say anything negative about other Realtors.

http://patrick.net/housing/contrib/ethics.html

Posted by: Your equity will be assimilated. at October 21, 2010 10:47 AM

"whose website, again?
not his."

FWIW, this agent's fraudulent MLS report is on his own site too, "autofill" or not, I just gave the first Google result I saw for it on a KW agent site previously:

http://haywoodbayareahomes.com/MyListings?disableGMap=1

End result is fraud and "look at my sales and comps."

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 21, 2010 11:28 AM

2039 Closed above asking at $1.6m. 40 DOM. More than double since its 2003 sale of $700k. And where will 2041 close?

Posted by: eddy at October 28, 2010 11:20 AM

More than double since its 2003 sale of $700k.

Yet it sold in 2001 for 1.150. Nearly 40% down in less than two years? Did that make sense to you? I don't remember seeing many $300 psft top floor condos on the park in 2003.

I know you aren't a cheerleader eddy, but maybe a little skepticism when you see something apparently double in price since 2003 might be warranted.

A little digging shows that 2003 sale isn't a sale at all. The same owner ends up as the recorded owner on the property 9 months later.

From property shark:

11/7/2003 Resale Lee, Tr Lee, Tr
2/14/2003 $700,000 Grant Deed Resale Lee, Tr Green, Robert J Revoc Trust
1/29/2003 Grant Deed Resale Lee, H Lee, Tr
3/20/2001 $1,150,000 Grant Deed Resale Collins, Edward B & Margaret L Lee, Holden H

Posted by: tipster at October 28, 2010 11:40 AM

Nice correction. Thanks. I've seen weirder things and that did seem odd, but I didn't review the full history. Oddly, now that I have reviewed the full history, it seems this place has its tax on an assessed value of $1.45??? Somethings these things escape me. This whole building has me totally confused!

Posted by: eddy at October 28, 2010 12:05 PM

I agree with eddy that this building's history is ultra weird. Why was the trust transfer at $700k? I'm in the middle of transferring our property to a revocable trust as we speak (estate taxes spring back to life on January 1 -- need to do estate and tax planning that was unnecessary before) and I don't see any reason to pop in this amount that is well below the 2001 purchase price. Maybe there were individual trusts for co-owners and they split it up? Odd.

Regardless, a sale at 39% over the '01 price (assuming no improvements) is a pretty good result for the seller.

Posted by: A.T. at October 28, 2010 12:24 PM

Could be that the 2001 sale was for 1.85, 1.15 to one entity and 700 to another, then they got their taxes lowered last year to 1.45, and sold it for 1.6. That would be more consistent with the market in 2001 and now.

Posted by: tipster at October 28, 2010 1:05 PM

I don't know how to explain the trust transfer, but it's obviously not arms-length. The $1.45M assessment doesn't seem that hard to explain, does it? Couldn't it easily be the $1.15M sale price plus the reassessment when the renovation was done ($175K on the completed building permit) plus Prop 13 adjustments?

The $700K trust deed could easily be related to a $700K loan, but I don't think looking at it is particularly helpful.

Posted by: sfrenegade at October 28, 2010 1:18 PM

It seems the offers due on 11/1 were not delivered? Price reduced to: $1,577,700

The buyer of 2039 is probably preparing a lawsuit as we type.

Posted by: eddy at November 17, 2010 9:37 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Embarcadero Exploratorium Ceremonially Breaks Ground Today | HOME | Polk Street Parking Lot Shuttered, Apartments Ready To Rise »