141 Hampshire Unit B
As we first reported yesterday, the rental Tim Lincecum is accused of trashing is 141 Hampshire Street Unit B, a 2,790 square foot three-bedroom condo which was purchased new for $999,000 in 2001.
141 Hampshire Unit B
In 2004 the 3,425 square foot sister Unit A with lesser views sold for $1,265,000 having been purchased for $899,000 in 2001. And in 2008, 141 Hampshire Unit B hit the market seeking $3,500,000 while advertising a gross annual rental income of $72,000.
The asking price for Unit B was first reduced to $2,788,000 and then to $1,700,000 in 2009 before the condo was withdrawn from the market in April 2010. The condo was rented to Timmy fully furnished that May.
There Might Have Been Smoke, But No Report Of A Fire… [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Mole Man

    White cloth upholstered furniture for the rental: brilliant!

  2. Posted by [anon.ed]

    As if you have any idea that the pictures correspond with what is/was currently/recently inside the property? Internet folks. So quick with the words. LOL.

  3. Posted by Fishchum

    Yeah, wouldn’t the furniture in the photos have most likely been staging furniture when it was for sale?

  4. Posted by Richard

    appears that the house wasn’t that thrashed – it’s now up for sale: http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/141-Hampshire-St-94103/unit-B/home/1473849
    [Editor’s Note: Keep in mind the listing photos from the most current listing are the same as from the pre-Lincecum days: Live Like Tim Lincecum (Two Year Contract Not Included).]

  5. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    From The Splash, The Chron’s Giants blog, SF Giants’ Tim Lincecum awarded $100,000 in landlord-tenant case:

    …Tim Lincecum,…and a former landlord have agreed to a $100,000 judgment in Lincecum’s favor that ends a San Francisco court case that began when the landlord sued him for allegedly leaving the Mission District townhouse a wreck after he left in 2010.

    …Landlord Mindy Freile sued Lincecum for allegedly damaging the townhouse during his time there and sought $350,000 in damages. Lincecum countersued, arguing that her allegations were false, and furthermore, Freile violated a state law that required her to account for the whereabouts of Lincecum’s security deposit.

    Lincecum’s attorney, Peter M. Bransten, said in a short phone interview that he had asked the court for a summary judgment in Lincecum’s favor. With the landlord subject to treble damages had she lost, Brantsen said, she agreed to the $100,000 judgment, although she can satisfy the judgment for less if she pays by a certain date. Bransten would not divulge the actual amount.

    “It’s clear from the landlord’s agreement that a judgment be entered in Mr. Lincecum’s favor that her claim to have sustained hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages was baseless,” Bransten said in a statement issued by Lincecum’s agency. “Regardless of the amount in issue, Mr. Lincecum will aggressively defend himself against all meritless claims.”

    The landlord got off easy.
    If I were someone like Tim Lincecum I would have taken this all the way to a judgement and then when the landlord didn’t pay the treble damages, placed a judgement lien against this or one of her other properties until I got paid the full amount.

Add a Comment

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