June 21, 2012

Will Wells Profit On This Condo's Foreclosure?

1945 Washington Street

Purchased for $610,000 in 2004, the two-bedroom Pacific Heights condo #409 at 1945 Washington Street was refinanced in 2007 with a first mortgage for $615,000.

Having fallen $13,274 behind on payments, seven months ago a notice of default was issued for the aforementioned first. And last month, the 924 square foot property was taken back by the bank with no bidders at $615,000 in cash on the courthouse steps.

The property is now listed on the MLS and asking $739,900 versus the $644,138 owed to Wells Fargo at the time of foreclosure, including penalties and principal.

∙ Listing: 1945 Washington #409 (2/2) 924 sqft - $739,900 [Redfin]
A Foreclosed Upon Noe Home Sells For Over...What Wells Was Owed [SocketSite]

First Published: June 21, 2012 11:30 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Is it accurate to suggest Wells will profit from this?

What about:

1. Internal management costs
2. Legal costs
3. Unknown final sale price
4. Does Wells pay transfer tax?
5. Most importantly, this is only one property in their entire portfolio, so even if they "make" money here, how much does it offset their other losses?

Posted by: Joshua at June 21, 2012 11:37 AM

One of these days Wells Fargo will get popped for "creative" accounting.

You heard it here first!

Posted by: inclinejj at June 21, 2012 1:32 PM

Pretty much every bank could be popped for such, and much worse, but the gov has decided it doesn't care if the banks cheat us.

Posted by: lyqwyd at June 21, 2012 2:27 PM

So what if Wells Fargo profits from this? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. The bank isn't cheating anyone. The bank gave a loan to someone who didn't meet obligations per the terms of the loan, and foreclosed as a result. Case closed. Nothing more to be said.

Posted by: apropos at June 21, 2012 2:54 PM


"SF Audit Finds Irregularities in 99 Percent of Foreclosures"


"In 85 percent of the loans, homes were lost to people or corporations who lacked the authority to foreclose on properties"

And 82 percent of the loans contained "suspicious activity," including "fabricating documents" and "backdating of documents," according to the study.

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/15Iez)

Why it's wrong is that the foreclosure was likely illegally performed.

Posted by: lyqwyd at June 21, 2012 3:42 PM

^OK. I guess banks should just stop foreclosing on properties when owners stop making payments on their loans. Silly me, what was I thinking.

Posted by: apropos at June 21, 2012 6:14 PM

Doesn anyone know if it is possble to buy a forclosed property with an 80/20 30 year fixed mortgage or is all cash required?

Posted by: lalalalalaaa at June 21, 2012 7:20 PM

Phase 3: Profit

There is a pretty in pink tie in here somewhere.

Posted by: eddy at June 22, 2012 6:58 AM


How about enforcing the law both ways? I got no problem with foreclosures as long as they are done legally. Wwhat the banks have done (systematic fraud) is much worse than failing to pay ones mortgage, why should they got off without punishment?

Posted by: lyqwyd at June 22, 2012 7:55 AM


I don't know for sure, but I think it's all cash.

Posted by: lyqwyd at June 22, 2012 7:56 AM

They are taking huge losses in FL, AZ and NV. If they do make a profit on this sale, it would barely cover the loss on a single property in Las Vegas.

Posted by: moz at June 22, 2012 8:22 AM

@ lyqwyd:

you are good at playing the victim card. i'm sure you've been doing it your whole life. fact is, when one signs a loan document, they sign a promissory note, which means "i promise to pay". Don't point fingers at the bank, look in the mirror instead and ask who the promise-breaker is...


Posted by: oa at June 22, 2012 8:42 AM

@lalalalaa - I believe you need all cash if you are buying on the courthouse steps. But once a bank has completed the foreclosure and listed the property for sale you can purchase it just like any other property, so you can get a standard loan, assuming you qualify and the property is habitable.

Posted by: Rillion at June 22, 2012 9:13 AM


Did you miss the part where I said "I got no problem with foreclosures as long as they are done legally"

I guess you think forging loan documents is perfectly acceptable process in foreclosing on somebody.

If somebody has been foreclosed on, how does that make it unacceptable for them to point out systemic criminal fraud enacted by banks?

FYI: I've never been foreclosed on, nor am I at risk of being foreclosed on.

So how exactly am I a victim, or playing one?

Posted by: lyqwyd at June 22, 2012 9:30 AM

An interesting court decision out of Mass. Looks like a lot of "illegal" foreclosures were, in fact, legal. No free house for deadbeats, I guess.


Posted by: anon at June 22, 2012 4:25 PM


Like I've said repeatedly, I don't have any problem with legal foreclosures. I didn't read anything in that link saying fabricating documents and forgeries were OK.

"... 82 percent of the loans contained "suspicious activity," including "fabricating documents" and "backdating of documents," according to the study."

If you or I did that type of stuff we'd be sent to jail, why do you think it's OK for banks to commit criminal acts?

Posted by: lyqwyd at June 22, 2012 5:22 PM

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:

« Hoop(er) It Up | HOME | Bay Area Home Sales Slow, Except In San Francisco »