Purchased for $639,500 in February of 2007, the single-family 1467 Underwood returned to the market as a “lender approved short sale” asking $340,000 this past October.
Currently in contract and scheduled to close this week (according to a plugged-in tipster), it appears as though some likely non-lender approved activity is now in play as well. As our source reports:
…the new owners or potential new owners were trying to do a walk-through yesterday but were not allowed inside, meanwhile you could hear banging inside the property, and later in the rainy night [you] could see the appliances…and plumbing fixtures [(vanities, vanity mirrors, doors)] being loaded onto a truck.
Stripping a property prior to foreclosure in San Francisco isn’t an unheard of occurrence (especially when an expensive kitchen is involved). But this is the first time we’ve heard of doing so between having negotiated a short-sale and its (now attempted) close.
It ought to be an interesting walk-through and response by the buyer and the bank.
∙ Listing: 1467 Underwood (4/2) – $340,000 (sale pending) [Redfin]
∙ From Foreshadowing To Foreclosure For A Marquee Loft Off Van Ness [SocketSite]
∙ Bank Owned Hits The Brannan (239 Brannan #11E) [SocketSite]
hopefully the police will be involved in that walk through as well, assuming what is alleged took place.
steve, why would the police need to be involved? If the appliances and fixtures were included in the purchase contract, then the buyer does not have to close. One can imagine the seller in this situation: “I have a cunning plan…”
EBGuy, the appliances were taken from someone. If not the buyers, for reasons you suggest (they don’t have to close), then from the note holders(the taxpayers). I think we’d all agree that its current occupants don’t have the right to pick up and move the house; I don’t see how they can legally strip it once component at a time.
I don’t see how they can legally strip it once component at a time.
steve, I’m pretty sure the bank would have some legal (civil) recourse, but of course they are unlikely to use it (I guess that’s what the seller was counting on). Does anyone know who the seller’s agent is? I’d love to hear his or her comments as I imagine their commission just evaporated (unless they’re in cahoots with the sellers & buyers and are gaming the bank). Please, please, if you’re listening, give us a post.
In virtually all lender agreements there is a stipulation that any improvements made are to remain with the property. This generally pertains to things such as an air conditioner or furnance that has been replaced, in some cases ceiling fans, those things which would damage or devaluate the property if they were to be removed.
From here.
I wish the police in Bayview would spend more time tracking down vanity cabinets that grew feet.
Contractally, there is probably an obligation for the seller and/or lender to remdey the situation for the buyer but this may be a deal killer. Unfortunately, there are people out there who have no respect for the law or private property. The problem here is who will come up with the money to offset the loss. Also, the vandelized property will no longer meet the lender’s loan requirements and will not close unless the repairs are completed. Short sales are difficult situations and this is another one of those difficulties that may be create problems.
The short sale of 1467 Underwood closed escrow on 12/10/09 with a reported and recorded contract price of $340,000. Once again, sold for $639,500 in February 2007.