Speaking of single-family homes for sale up in Miraloma Park, when we last checked in on 99 Marietta the four-bedroom home had returned to the MLS as short sale listed for $685,500 having fallen out of contract when previously listed for $612,500.
Once again, the 1,966 square foot home was purchased for $850,000 in September 2005 with a rather reasonable 20 percent down and a $680,000 variable rate loan. Not previously mentioned, in February 2007 the property was refinanced with a first for $750,000 and a second for $149,000 (for which the property would have had to appraise).
A few minutes ago the list price for 99 Marietta was reduced to $675,000. At the same time, the property is currently scheduled to hit the courthouse steps on March 18 with $41,355 past due on Washington Mutual’s first (as previously noted by a reader).
And yes, Washington Mutual wrote that second as well. That’s a good a thing if you’re trying to negotiate a short sale, not so much for everyone else.
∙ Listing: 99 Marietta (4/2) 1,966 sqft – $675,000 [MLS]
∙ A Modern Miraloma Apple Returns At 801 Teresita Boulevard [SocketSite]
∙ 99 Marietta Comes Up Short (For The Sellers) In Miraloma [SocketSite]
Pretty dumb imo to “pay” 850k for this place back in 2005, but the “owners” got smart and extracted all their downpayment and then some. Also very smart to fall behind on mortgage and tax payments. There won’t be any consequences.
When someone (eg, a bank and its cronies) is dumb enough to put a million dollars in your hand, the smart thing is to close it and hold tight.
On balance, a net winner for these “sellers”. Congratulations, kudos, etc.
The editor answered my questions from the last thread. The $750K first explains why $750K was the original approved short sale price, although you’d think Chase/WaMu would care about their own second. I wonder where that $220K went.
550k in 2000 and 850k in 2005. Surprisingly, that’s only 8.5%/yr appreciation. Appraising for 900k in 2007 would not seem out of line to me at all, given the prevailing madness – I’m sure it could have sold for that in 2007 with basically zero down.
A good question is whether it ends up selling closer to the 2000 price or the 2005 price. How far back in time has our home-price-decline-time-machine traveled? The 2000 price would be pretty close to fair rental value at today’s interest rates, assuming the place is in decent shape and does not need lots of unusual maintenance. And 36% under a 2005 sale price would be on the steep end of the market norm but not way out of line.
I disagree– I think 36% under 2005 price or at the 2000 price would be unusually low for a SFR outside of the SE corner of the city.
Dan, here is a very nice 3/3 2-level condo with knockout views that just closed at 22% below its 2005 sale price. In Pacific Heights.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2052-Green-St-94123/unit-2/home/1898425/sfarmls-375136
Granted, 36% under the 2005 price is more than 22%, but as I said, it would not be way out of line with the SF market generally.
^OMG they lost more than $500K in 6 years on a condo? Geez, you think you bought before the big runup and you still lose more than half a mil.
I wonder why Nina cross-listed that condo on BAREIS. It took a while to close. That’s more than 30% with inflation.
Is that $653 per month for the HOA? Isn’t that high for this building? Is that really a 4-unit building, or have units been merged? The total square footage for units #1 through #4 would be more than 5500 based on what’s listed on Redfin (800 0/1, 1001 1/1 , 1520 2/2, 2224+ 3/), but the building doesn’t look that big.
The list price for 99 Marietta has been reduced to $650,000.
Sold for $650,000.
So 18% over the 2000 price and 24% below the 2005 price (ignoring inflation for both — well below the 2000 price taking inflation into account).
At today’s rates, that’s a pretty decent buy for a family of 5 or so. Not a total bargain but pretty decent.