1 South Park #407

From our report in May:

As we noted in 2007 a few months after the sales office at One South Park first started taking soft reservations, sales materials denoted eighteen of the thirty-five already “reserved” with one, Number 407, already “sold” and likely a developer’s unit.

Today, the three-bedroom condo across two floors and with one big roof deck (with hot tub and soon to be grill) hit the market for the first time listed for $3,300,000.

While not listed, tax records peg the penthouse unit’s interior space at 2,659 square feet.

In July the listing for One South Park #407 was officially withdrawn from the MLS without a reported sale. As a plugged-in tipster reports, however, the unit actually sold for an unreported $3,500,000 in a quiet and confidential sale to the anonymous “Deebek LLC.”

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by eddy

    I’d like to know who the listing agent was here on this transaction. This is blatantly against the rules and other agents in the city should be concerned about this tactic. The MLS Police should make a apply their rules here otherwise we’ll be right back to the old days of hidden sales prices and confidential deals.
    Go ahead and list your listing off market or on [pocketlistings] if you want to do conceal your situation. But don’t break the rules and call your ethics into question. I’m sure the buyer demanded it; but it’s still against the rules. There is an escalating clause / penalty for offenders and I hope they apply it here.
    [Editor’s Note: To clarify, it’s a violation of MLS member rules to fail to report the sale and selling price of a recently listed property, even if said listing has been withdrawn from the MLS (within three months we believe).]

  2. Posted by mikeyWoodz

    Agree Eddy that is BS, but whoever bought this for 3.5m is a serious ass clown…..over 1300/sq ft for a soma condo….Nutz.
    I toured it, pretty nice finishes but not an A+ job, finishing work wasnt superb and bathrooms were set up oddly

  3. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I really don’t get this. The buyer paid what looks like 6% over asking for the place; what’s the motivation for returning to the practices common in “the old days of hidden sales prices and confidential deals”? Shouldn’t the seller’s agent be crowing about this from the rooftops?
    Perhaps one of you insiders can explain it to the unwashed masses.

  4. Posted by EH

    The shortest comment threads on Socketsite are the ones where realtor malfeasance appears.

  5. Posted by catchafallingknife

    The product of unearned income. Twitter..twitts…Zinga…ziggys…..looking for a place to park their declining dollars.
    I’m shocked at the over asking for a unit not actually on South Park…but location…location..location dictates what people are willing to pay. A South Park address continues to command premiums in the SoMa.
    There are more in the works like this……fetching similar prices….stay tuned.
    Given all the controversy surrounding the unit and the years of litigation amongst the developer partners I’d be surprised if the seller broke even.
    Anyone care to venture what the finishes cost? It wouldn’t surprise me if they came in at $300-$400 per sqft.

  6. Posted by eddy

    The agent wasn’t too hard to find and you’ll see no mention of this over-asking trophy comp on their website. Wouldn’t want to let anyone think that you were hiding something I suppose.

  7. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “I’m sure the buyer demanded it”
    What would you do if that demand was contingent upon the sale, Eddy?

  8. Posted by tipster

    anon.ed, you have that backwards. The sale would be contingent upon the demand.
    eddy, is it possible that the sale was completed without the agent?
    I knew a homeowner who had listed a property that failed to sell, and someone knocked on their door a couple of months later and asked to see it. Then the buyers made the owner an offer and the owner accepted. They hired a lawyer and had no need for the agent. The agent wasn’t involved.
    Whatever the listing agreement may have said about such an arrangement, the fact is that no listing agent more than two weeks away from retirement would dare ever sue a homeowner. If the homeowner is also a developer, not one chance they ever sue. So it’s entirely possible that happened in this case.
    I have also seen situations where the seller has a side arrangement with a close party to simply sell to them for whatever the highest bona fide offer they get during the listing period. So they list, thank the agent for bringing offers, turn all of them down, and sell to the friend for the highest offer.
    If this was a developer with an established business relationship with an agent, it wouldn’t surprise me if the developer told the agent up front about the deal: and the agent just gave up the commission in return for a lot of prior business. To continue my theme that virtually everyone in this business is dishonest, you could consider that it was arranged that way to screw the broker out of their cut.
    Again, no agent will ever sue a homeowner (or will find themselves permanently out of business), and I can think of any number of scenarios where this could have happened without any involvement of the agent at all.

  9. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Yeah, what if the demand was a contingency? I didn’t mean for that to publish and the site crashed. Why is it so unstable?

  10. Posted by sfrenegade

    “What would you do if that demand was contingent upon the sale, Eddy? ”
    Violate your own organization’s “professional rules” or satisfy the client? Tough choice for the ethical realtor.
    Sort of a stupid choice too, since public records will reveal all eventually:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1-S-Park-St-94107/unit-407/home/21966165

  11. Posted by wrath

    when it was decided that some records should be public it was not the case that making them “public” meant that someone across the country (or for that matter in Uzbekistan, etc.) could punch this up on the internet and find out your selling/purchase price. That is a total violation of privacy. You should have no right to see what someone paid for a house if buyer/seller don’t want to disclose this. Unfortunately, our laws have not kept up with reality.
    Since MLS has sold itself out to websites such as the infamous Blockshopper that purports to plaster this as “news” all over the internet, people are forced to take action on their own. How would you like to be a CIA agent (or for that matter any law enforcement official) whose exact home location/price is revealed? And if cops can (and they do) get out of this, why shouldn’t the average folks as well. Why exactly you think you have a right to find out how much your neighbor paid for your house is beyond me.
    Cudos to the broker and all parties involved. If MLS doesn’t like it, it can take action against them. If they do that enough times, people will set up their own version of MLS to compete – will see then how long MLS lasts.

  12. Posted by eddy

    It’s a tough situation if your sale was contingent upon a confidentiality clause. And maybe there was a waiver obtained from MLS here. It’s probably unfair to throw accusations around, but, hey it’s the internet. The listing was withdrawn on the same day redfin is showing the sale so it’s all a little sketchy. The fact that it was (mostly) erased from the agent website is also odd (not really).
    Let’s face it, it’s highly unlikely that this sale closed separate and apart from the listing contract the seller had in place. There is an honor system here and the agent did what they had to do. I just hope that the proper recourse is given and that the MLS folks take this seriously. The agents are required to report accurate information. Report closed transactions. And report the final selling price. It’s not clear if 1 or more rules were violated here. But there is a warning issued for a first violation for not disclosing the sale price, followed by a scheduled fine = $1000 for s second violation, third violation is $2000 and $3000 for a fourth violation. So in the end, even the MLS lets you break the rules with minimal consequences, but it’s still pretty weak and is something that should be frowned upon, IMO.

  13. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I for one would love to live in a country where “average folks” can purchase a $3,500,000 condo. And unlike Lake Wobegon, I’d be happy to be average or even just below average living there.

  14. Posted by sfrenegade

    when it was decided that some records should be public it was not the case that making them “public” meant that someone across the country (or for that matter in Uzbekistan, etc.) could punch this up on the internet and find out your selling/purchase price. That is a total violation of privacy. You should have no right to see what someone paid for a house if buyer/seller don’t want to disclose this. Unfortunately, our laws have not kept up with reality.
    Our real property recording system is based on a system of notice to others of one’s real property interests. There’s nothing wrong with it now, and it’s not a violation of privacy. The issue of someone having to go down to the recording office and being able to figure this out on the internet is a red herring and is mostly suggested by unsophisticated luddites. There’s little difference — get with the times. The notice system was meant to put *everybody* on notice, and *everybody* has gotten bigger.
    You haven’t given a great justification even for why CIA agents or cops should get out of this. I’d love to know what CIA agents you’ve outed through public property records. 🙂 Many more things than property records are technically public — you’re just ignorant of them.
    If they do that enough times, people will set up their own version of MLS to compete – will see then how long MLS lasts.
    Good luck, the market has failed us here. I would love to have a competing MLS that isn’t subject to the realtor cartel.
    You aren’t quite understanding what data MLS is revealing vs. what the recording system is revealing, by the way.

  15. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    I’m not a real estate agent, but let’s just do a back of the envelope calc here. Feel free to correct me if I have something wrong.
    Assume the worst case scenario, starting with the assumption that this is the only sale the listing agent has made so far this year. $3,500,000 x 2.5% (commission split to listing agent) = $87,500 gross commission.
    60/40 Brokerage split = 52,500 (to Brokerage) leaving $35,000 for agent. 8% franchise fee: $87,500 x 8% = $7,000. Net commission to agent = $28,000.
    Even paying the maximum fine for MLS violations that eddy mentions above, that leaves $25,000 for the agent vs. a possible nothing if the seller walked (don’t agents have release clauses in their contracts nowadays?). I could easily see someone happily writing that $3k check as a cost of doing business.

  16. Posted by [anon.ed]

    60/40 in favor of the brokerage, plus 8 off the top? ouch and double ouch.

  17. Posted by wrath

    “Our real property recording system is based on a system of notice to others of one’s real property interests. There’s nothing wrong with it now, and it’s not a violation of privacy.”
    1) what does any of the above have with revealing the price? Since thinking seems to come slowly and only in spurts to some, I will help you – the answer is “nothing”;
    2) let’s break this down: our real estate system is based on recording the interests that people have in the real estate – to protect the owners/banks and the potential buyer/lender – that’s all – there is no reason why any idiot sitting at a computer and who does not have any desire to actually acquire the property should be allowed to discover anything about parcel of property.
    “The issue of someone having to go down to the recording office and being able to figure this out on the internet is a red herring and is mostly suggested by unsophisticated luddites.
    There’s little difference — get with the times.”
    3)
    4) there is a massive practical difference – the old system ensured that no one who either really had to or really, really wanted to would be able to find our where you live, how much you paid for your house, etc.
    4) calling someone “an unsophisticated luddite” or “ignorant” does not advance the discussion. E.g., one could say “I wish your mom had taken the rapist’s advice and had had that abortion” – while perhaps a correct expression of community sentiment, it is likewise, given where we are, not constructive.
    “The notice system was meant to put *everybody* on notice, and *everybody* has gotten bigger.”
    5) To correctly, in contrast to your example, use the term “red herring”: this is a classic red herring. What was and was not intended originally when the system was put in place (and, btw, this was not) is irrelevant. What is relevant is, given where we are today, do we want to alter the system.
    “You haven’t given a great justification even for why CIA agents or cops should get out of this. I’d love to know what CIA agents you’ve outed through public property records. :)”
    6) I wasn’t trying to. If this isn’t obvious, then you have bigger issues.

  18. Posted by sfrenegade

    What is relevant is, given where we are today, do we want to alter the system.
    But you haven’t given a justification for anything other than “I don’t want my own house’s price revealed” or “I’m scared of the internet.” You’re the one wanting to change an ancient system. You’re the one who needs to justify it, especially when as a matter of public policy, there are numerous reasons for this information to be available.
    what does any of the above have with revealing the price? Since thinking seems to come slowly and only in spurts to some, I will help you – the answer is “nothing”;
    Sure it does. If a property is encumbered by a mortgage, it is part of the property system to know how that property is encumbered. This is all part of notice.
    Historically, you could buy a property subject to a mortgage. You’d obviously want to know how much the property had been valued in the past to do that and how much the current mortgage is.
    let’s break this down: our real estate system is based on recording the interests that people have in the real estate – to protect the owners/banks and the potential buyer/lender – that’s all
    How do you determine who a potential buyer or lender is? Someone has to enter into a transaction and an NDA to be one?
    there is a massive practical difference – the old system ensured that no one who either really had to or really, really wanted to would be able to find our where you live, how much you paid for your house, etc.
    Absolutely not true. You’ve always been able to go down to the recorder’s office. Now the recorder’s office can come to you. I’ve always been able to figure this out with minimal effort.
    Furthermore, how do you determine a priori who needs to be able to find you or determine how much you paid? This information has always been more than public to commercial parties (passed around by data providers), so why shouldn’t it be public to others? If someone has a judgment against you, why shouldn’t they be able to figure out the likelihood of collecting on it? What about tax liens and mechanics liens? How do you determine how much they are worth without having a realistic picture? What about foreclosure sales? How else can you determine what comps are in the neighborhood? The list of questions goes on.
    Ultimately, your argument comes down to “I don’t like it” — you haven’t identified a single benefit of non-disclosure. This isn’t personal information in any sense of the term, so the right of privacy argument doesn’t really work.
    And I get that certain states don’t disclose prices directly — and even in those states, there’s a strong argument for the government that prices should be disclosed, so that property tax rolls can be determined more accurately and fairly, and state legislatures and municipalities engage in debate on this. Oftentimes it’s realtors who lobby against transparency, so that they can engage in anti-competitive behavior.

  19. Posted by catchafallingknife

    Hello…..you want to know the purchase of a home in SF….yoo hoo it’s no secret…you go here
    https://gate.link2gov.com/sfpropertytax/PropertyInformation.aspx
    At some point the sale will become a matter of public record….only the names will be withheld.

  20. Posted by wrath

    “You’re the one wanting to change an ancient system. You’re the one who needs to justify it, especially when as a matter of public policy, there are numerous reasons for this information to be available.”
    1)No doubt such arguments were also being used in Brown vs. Board of Education.
    However, to be fair, I don’t want to change any system at all – I want it to operate the way it had before. If you want to head to the recorder’s office in some county in South Dakota to get more info on property there – be my guest.
    Your argument does not take into account the changing technological circumstances at all – This is an absolutist position that fails to recognize the realities of the modern age and amounts to saying that is how we’ve done before and therefore that is “gosh darn it” how we should do it now.
    It is akin to saying that b/c you believe in the 2nd amendment, the government has no right to regulate/take away your M-60 and, if you could get your hands on enough plutonium, they’d no right to take that away either.
    “How do you determine who a potential buyer or lender is? Someone has to enter into a transaction and an NDA to be one?”
    2) That could be one way. To quote what I already wrote: there is no reason why any idiot sitting at a computer and who does not have any desire to actually acquire the property should be allowed to discover anything about parcel of property
    “If someone has a judgment against you, why shouldn’t they be able to figure out the likelihood of collecting on it? What about tax liens and mechanics liens? How do you determine how much they are worth without having a realistic picture?”
    3) I am touched by your concern for the common repo man’s hard life in the pre-Internet era. But I assure you your creditors will find you – or do you believe that you could load up on debt and get away scott free before Netscape came up with their browser?
    In any event, of course this proves a little much. No doubt if you are a creditor with a judgement, you’d also want to know what’s in the debtor’s bank or brokerage account and where his other assets are. Do you believe I (as not an actual but even a potential creditor (who isn’t one after all?)) should have finger tip access to all your financial information? I will accept no counterarguments other than you immediately sending me/posting on this site all of your bank statements (for starters). (I also want to know how manys spouses you’ve had in case there are other interested parties).
    4) Moreover, if you are worried not just about the creditor but about a potential acquirer of the property, there is, of course, no reason why your argument should be limited to real estate, is there? Continuing with the prior thought, why don’t we publish everyone’s balance sheet on the internet. In case I want to buy some shares in any private company, I can’t look to the SEC (for the most part) – shouldn’t we therefore force Facebook or Cargill to disclose all of their assets/liabilities on the web? Would help a lot with those private market trades.
    “This isn’t personal information in any sense of the term, so the right of privacy argument doesn’t really work”
    5) To say that your argument is nonsense would be to (yet again) restate the painfully obvious. If you don’t believe financial information regarding what, for most people, is the largest asset in their possession is not personal in the commonsense meaning of the term, then, as I said before, you have bigger issues (or, more likely, other interests). If, on the other hand, your “thought” (and I use that word liberally) is only that the disclosure of it is not currently legally protected even with the Internet-based system, then that is, obviously, what we are arguing about here. My thought (using the strictest definition of the word) is that commonsense usage has to help evolve legal definitions – your logic, on the other hand, would suggest that, e.g., the quickest way to end all murders would be to purge the concept from the criminal code. So yes, I do believe that “private information” has to be defined by what the common meaning of the words would encompass.
    Ask yourself (moments of self-doubt are obviously hard to come by, but do try), did those who wrote the notice laws meant for someone across the world in an entirely different country to get information about your largest assets at the stroke of a key?
    “for the government that prices should be disclosed, so that property tax rolls can be determined more accurately and fairly, ”
    6) I always like to hear nice things about the proud American trade of state legislator. That’s great that our state legislators are so interested in fairness. Perhaps, they can first apply such noble disclosure intentions to the question of per race disclosure of test scores in state universities and their admissions processes.

  21. Posted by sfrenegade

    “No doubt such arguments were also being used in Brown vs. Board of Education. ”
    Did you really just compare this to desegregation in schools? Poor analogy, incredibly poor argument, not context-dependent at all. Real property is different.
    “I will accept no counterarguments other than you immediately sending me/posting on this site all of your bank statements (for starters). (I also want to know how manys spouses you’ve had in case there are other interested parties).”
    That’s silly. Context always matters, and real property has always been different from bank records. Add that to the fact that creditors already have access to a lot of information, stuff that is much more personal than property records.
    “My thought (using the strictest definition of the word) is that commonsense usage has to help evolve legal definitions – your logic, on the other hand, would suggest that, e.g., the quickest way to end all murders would be to purge the concept from the criminal code.”
    And you call my argument nonsense. This is one of the multiple poor analogies you’ve made (comparing to 2nd amendment is yet another). You have also failed to describe how my logic would suggest such a point — just a random leap here. It’s not personal information because use of real property has always been required to be open and notorious in order to maintain a property claim.
    Your argument basically boils down to: “I don’t like it” and “I’m scared of the internets.” The intention has always for the information to be public, regardless of how you obtain it.
    “In case I want to buy some shares in any private company, I can’t look to the SEC (for the most part) – shouldn’t we therefore force Facebook or Cargill to disclose all of their assets/liabilities on the web? Would help a lot with those private market trades.”
    Yet another poor analogy. Securities regulation provides a balance between the sophistication of the buyer and the disclosures the seller has to make. Real property generally does not.
    “To quote what I already wrote: there is no reason why any idiot sitting at a computer and who does not have any desire to actually acquire the property should be allowed to discover anything about parcel of property”
    This in itself is nonsensical and an extremely poor argument. I can discover many things about a parcel by walking by without having any intention to acquire the property. Property is outside and available for others to visit. What difference does it make if you’re at a computer or on the ground? Do you also want to ban Google Street View and satellite maps because they didn’t exist in the 1600s?
    Transparency in property markets is a good thing, and anything that provides buyers and sellers advantages against the realtor cartel is a good thing. Allowing any buyer or seller to do their own due diligence is a good thing, certainly.
    I’m not sure you’re really advancing the argument with the numerous references to “thought” — it really does show what a weak argument you have in the first place. The poor analogies to other situations don’t help either.
    Requiring an NDA for any property transaction is really the best thing you’ve come up with so far, and that’s a pretty weak solution that is not administrable or in the interest of people who are buying or selling property. Basically, you’re happy to criticize, but you don’t have any actual solutions other than banning dissemination of property information on the internet.

  22. Posted by wrath

    for starters, it’s internet not “internets” – unless, of course, you’re typing this from your your ranch in texas.
    second, repeatedly stating that an argument or analogy is “poor” or “extremely poor” (obviously b/c it disproves your points so completely) without explaining why is just an exercise in exploitation of adjectives.
    third, claiming that the validity of an analogy is dependent on the context, eviscerates the logic of an analogy and reduces its applicability only to those cases where the other party finds the context attractive (based on unspecified criteria known only to the critiquing party) – basically, you know when an analogy works when you see a good analogy; that may win a sandbox argument but does not bode well for SATs.
    specifically, the statement that “Securities regulation provides a balance between the sophistication of the buyer and the disclosures the seller has to make [while real property [regulation?] does not],” is of course, silly. You can sue anyone for fraud based on common law. More to the point, securities regulation does not generally force disclosures of the kind of information that one “might” hypothetically be interested in as regards PRIVATE companies. Hence my use of private company stock transactions as an analogy to private real estate transactions.
    fourth, the notion that in order to maintain a property claim you have to have open and notorious use, under current law, is not disputed. However, you are, in effect, saying that that is not possible without the Internet – which begs the question of how the real property system of Anglo-Saxon countries survived so long sans cables and fiberoptics (which I am inclined to educate (as well as admonish) were not invented until much later than your quoted 1600s).
    fifth, all of our rights are based on specified norms of conduct – and exploting them to the maximum extent possible is not something that most people feel the need to do. But that is why, for people like you apparently, we assume that yes, you can stand on a public sidewalk (in SF apparently also sleep and defecate until recently) all you want but if you stand right in front of my bedroom window enough times, the owner may have a claim.
    sixth, to give you a specific example, it is currently legal for you to acquire a long-range microphone that will pick up conversation at 200 yards. this is true in public places, but it is also true if you aim the device (or a variant of it) at a window – that is btw why many official buildings have triple paned glass with special sound scattering components. Your answer, were a real estate broker to show up on my doorstep scanning my house (for relevant information about current inhabitants, of course), would be that I can also install triple-paned windows in my house. But, of course, why should I have to go through the expense?
    In addition there are devices that you can acquire for less than 10k which will provide a real time scan of the inhabitants of a house through concrete. The argument is that the device itself does not “enter” your private area, i.e., the house, it only picks up emanations from your house that show up outside in the “public” sphere.” That, to me, is a weak argument. There are, of course, ways to hinder that – but, again, why should I invest in 10 inch lead walls? what if I want to chew on them? Do I also have to acquire protective coating?
    seventh, as regards the specific mention of satellite view and street view, I have no problem banning them as well.
    eight, you say “Basically, you’re happy to criticize, but you don’t have any actual solutions other than banning dissemination of property information on the internet.”
    Au contraire, that is precisely the solution I have and that suffices to me entirely. You may not like it but it’s really quite simple.
    ninth, w/r/t your specific point of “It’s not personal information because use of real property has always been required to be open and notorious in order to maintain a property claim” I have demonstrated above how those parties who are really interested could find this out (e.g., entering into an NDA/real live transaction).
    If you are interested in the property owner, on the other hand, it seems mighty paternalistic to force someone to disclose information – if they want to “chance” that their ownership w/not be “notorious” b/c the property records are not on the internet, why should you force them to do otherwise?
    Point of fact is that if you want to publish your information on the internet, nobody (not even me) will argue against that – also feel free to plaster your purchase price, layout pdf and mortgage type right above your mailbox – any potential buyer walking through the neighborhood will, no doubt, be thrilled.
    tenth, while I am not a fan of the real estate industry your repeated references to and apparent obsession with the “broker cartel” suggest a medical cause of your spirited defense of the indefensible.
    Ironically, the disclosure of THAT kind of information is protected by law, which is a shame, b/c were your psychiatrist willing to share his/her case notes on the internet, I could have consulted them before engaging in this obviously pointless exercise.

  23. Posted by sfrenegade

    Hey man, you’re the one resorting to childish insults (yet another sign of poor arguments), not me. Making crappy analogies that aren’t context-dependent isn’t helpful — it’s usually a good way to make a poor argument, when you could have tried to make a good or convincing one.
    Your solution is banning people from publishing information on the internet. Awesome.
    I guess we can agree to disagree.

  24. Posted by wrath

    don’t be ridiculous. I will never agree to that.
    and yes, my solution is banning people from gathering and publishing private information on the internet. that is correct.
    and yes, it is also awesome.

  25. Posted by eddy

    Lame attempt to draw the focus of this whole thing off course.

  26. Posted by wrath

    what is the focus of this whole thing?

  27. Posted by DukeLaw

    Maybe wrath should take a property law class (or if you have, maybe take a refresher course).

  28. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Maybe wrath should take a property law class”
    Yeah, and also a con law class, although con law is mostly a vapid subject that gets way too much attention.

  29. Posted by Rillion

    Sorry wrath but we found out how much you paid and think it was too much. Also what does DEEBEK stand for? I’m guessing its some combo of initials.

  30. Posted by sfrenegade

    “Also what does DEEBEK stand for?”
    First initial + part of last name, if you look at the link someone sent.

  31. Posted by eddy

    1 S Park St Apt 407 San Francisco, CA 94107 was sold for $3,500,000. One South Park Street #407.
    what is the focus of this whole thing?
    @wrath, your troll behavior is an obvious attempt to draw the original topic of undisclosed prices and violating MLS rules off to some other lame internets rant.
    Facts:
    1 S Park St Apt 407 San Francisco, CA 94107 was sold for $3,500,000. One South Park Street #407.
    It was listed on MLS for $3.3M and there is a proper flyer for it as well:
    http://www.bridge-sf.com/file/1southpark402-Statement.pdf
    It sold for over asking. The seller agent chose to pull the listing and to not disclose the price. Only one reason this would happen. Buyer demanded it. Buyer Agent condoned it. We can infer who the buyer agent is here by cross-referencing related listings outside of the city to the same DEEBEK and draw pretty good conclusions.
    Thanks for plugging in.

Add a Comment

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