CFAH

724 Moultrie
It’s a single-family Bernal “2/1” (with unofficial 1/1 below) that’s been held for just shy of five years. Purchased in April 2005 for $855,000 with $85,500 down (10%), 724 Moultrie is back on the market seeking a short sale at “$649,000” ($569 per legal square foot).
Not nearly as renovated as 130 Newman was in 2005, yet it’s another Bernal “comp” that sold for well over an MLS reported $700 per square foot ($750 in this case) back then.
Regardless, in “apples to apples” terms, a short sale at asking (which we doubt this will be) would represent a 24 percent discount below its 2005 purchase price.
∙ Listing: 724 Moultrie (2/1) 1,140 sqft – $649,000 [MLS]
Hellooo Jerry! The Postman Delivers A Bernal Apple [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anonn

    Ahh yes, the “short sale” apple. Kitchen remodel? That’s not an apple! Bank encumberment? Johnny Appleseed must have visited these parts!

  2. Posted by Zig

    Damn this is getting to the point where an average joe like me might even be able to afford a little place
    Maybe we haven’t been crowded out after all!

  3. Posted by zig

    Bad location though

  4. Posted by anonn

    I sent it to a client. The same bank seems to own both notes. So I guess it could possibly sell for the list price. But I doubt it will. Regardless, what would this list at if it wasn’t a short sale? Probably 750 or so. Seemingly 769K would make the bank whole.

  5. Posted by chuckie

    I don’t think the list price means anything in this case. They are just trying to generate some offers that they can bring to the bank.
    Will anyone care to guesstimate the rental value and list price?

  6. Posted by EBGuy

    Southeast Bernal is a basket case; will be interesting to see how far up the hill the cancer spreads. Short sale? A motivated bank I guess; a Notice of Trustee Sale was filed on December 16.

  7. Posted by tipster

    727

  8. Posted by Spencer

    $710K

  9. Posted by Willow

    I suspect the monthly rental would run in the $2300 to $2700 range.

  10. Posted by chuckie

    A place like should reasonably not be valued at more than a multiple of 250. So I would say fmv of $575K to $675K. I don’t see why anyone would want to buy at these levels. I only see downside risk without any upside potential.

  11. Posted by Uncle Festus

    I suspect that rents are dropping like a stone and that it would rent for about $1900. For $2700 you could live in a much nicer neighborhood with at least as much space. But of course I may be totally wrong…it would hardly be the first time.

  12. Posted by anonn

    There’s an upstairs main house and an inlaw, remember. Nineteen hundred only? Try to find any piece of junk one bedroom for under 1000. I doubt there are many.

  13. Posted by Spencer

    “I suspect that rents are dropping like a stone and that it would rent for about $1900. For $2700 you could live in a much nicer neighborhood with at least as much space”
    agree with uncle festus. you can rent a 2bd, about this same size in any neighborhood for under 2500

  14. Posted by Uncle Festus

    Not sure what the rental proposition here is. If I rent the 2/1 would I also get the “in law” unit? It all sounds pretty complicated to a prospective tenant, who is, at this point, the buyer who gets to pick and choose. The way I read the listing the “in law” is a little fuzzy legally.
    But as I said, I may be completely wrong. If I were always right (or even right half the time) would I be called Uncle Festus?

  15. Posted by anonn

    You rent the upstairs. Somebody else rents the downstairs. They add up to more than 19, gare on teed

  16. Posted by anon

    What’s an “unofficial 1/1” — built without a permit? Illegal? Nice, rent it out and roll the dice.
    Of course, your [Removed by Editor] will tell you no problem “gare on teed (sic).”

  17. Posted by anonn

    Ha. Whatever. Would I advise that? No. Do thousands of people in the city do it? yeah.
    I’m beginning to understand that you have no idea how anything actually works. You just like to say your little negative pap. LOL.

  18. Posted by Willow

    I did a quick search on Craigslist and $2300 – $2700 seems about the correct range. Honestly, you may get $1900 but landlord’s would rather sweeten the deal by offering discounted 1st month’s rent, or reducing the security deposit than signing on for a low monthly rental dollar amount. I also think that being a SFH would attract a certain set of renters that would be willing to pay a premium over a multi-unit dwelling.

  19. Posted by concerned

    The “unofficial 1/1” may make getting financing particularly challenging

  20. Posted by anonn

    No, it won’t.

  21. Posted by tipster

    Great logic.
    Because it’s a SFR, not a multi unit, it should get a higher rent.
    And because it’s a multi unit, not a SFR, you can rent out the two units for more than the price of the one unit alone!

  22. Posted by anonn

    OK Tipster. Top and bottom together wouldn’t rent for more than 1900. Neither would renting it to one person who could use the lower as a work studio or whatever. You’re right. In Hades.

  23. Posted by eddy

    Moultrie. Sounds like “Mulva”

  24. Posted by Uncle Festus

    I guess my point was that I wouldn’t pay that much to rent the upstairs alone (particularly if someone else was living in the basement, aka “in law unit”) and it wasn’t clear to me whether the downstairs could even be rented legally. Renting the whole thing for about $2500 would be a good deal, but there are lots of good deals out there in that price range right now so it doesn’t jump off the page as a super deal rentwise, particularly if the owner is under any kind of financial pressure.

  25. Posted by Willow

    “Great logic.
    Because it’s a SFR, not a multi unit, it should get a higher rent.
    And because it’s a multi unit, not a SFR, you can rent out the two units for more than the price of the one unit alone!”
    Tipster: All this means is that if this property was ever rented the landlord would have the flexibility to market it as either a SFH with an extra 1/1 space to a single set of tenants, or alternatively you could rent each space separately. Not sure why that is unclear and defies your sense of logic…

  26. Posted by concerned

    @ annon
    re: No, it won’t. (regarding financing)
    Please share any financing tips you may have in regards to getting properties with non permitted additions approved …
    The obstacle I’ve faced is how the appraiser (whom I believe is randomly chosen now due to new regulations) reports these “illegal additions.”
    I’ve gotten financing for one property w/ a garage to living quarter conversion, but had two other’s denied – same bank used. The agent also mentioned “health and safety” issues for non permitted work as part of the denial reason.
    thank you

  27. Posted by Lookyloo

    I saw this place during an open house several months ago. While the kitchen/dining room combination is pretty decent, the living room and bedrooms are very, very small. The “in-law” is a weird network of rooms with an extremely low (less than 6′ in some places I believe) ceiling throughout, I would attach very little value to it. If you have some cash to re-do the interior (knocking down walls, etc.), it could be worthwhile…if the price was a bit lower.

  28. Posted by anonn

    A house I sold recently got an FHA loan, no less, and there was an unwarranted inlaw.

  29. Posted by anon

    FHA loan — that’s apples and oranges. During the boom, there were plenty of loans given on properties that were not collaterizable. The FHA is just continuing this process to prop up the market.
    These loans are often grouped under subprime because the banksters sought to label such properties negatively in a failed attempt to hide the truth. But subprime actually has a formal definition that doesn’t cover these properties, because traditional subprime lending ensures that properties are collaterizable. In fact, more likely, these were Alt-A properties or some other low-doc/no-doc loan-type that didn’t have predictable default rates, unlike traditional subprime lending which actually did have a predictable default rate before the financial crisis.

  30. Posted by anonn

    Huh? That didn’t have anything to do with anything I said in response to the poster “concerned.” You spoke out of turn both literally and figuratively.

  31. Posted by anon

    Sure it does. A property with an unwarranted unit is technically an uncollateralizable property. A lot of banks won’t lend on that knowingly these days. The second paragraph is just NB.

  32. Posted by anonn

    So you say, from your armchair. I’ve seen differently repeatedly.

  33. Posted by anon

    And I’ve seen the opposite too. What’s your point?

  34. Posted by anonn

    I made my point. It was in response to concerned’s question. This would get FHA financing in my opinion. It would also get other financing. It’s possible that an appraiser would disregard the lower space entirely, but it would get a loan IMO. Half the SFRs in town have spaces like this.

  35. Posted by concerned

    @ anonn – thank you for the insight, I’ll try FHA on my next purchase; you’re absolutely correct in that many SFR’s in SF share the “issue” and I was wondering how they’d get financing
    @ anon – I’ve had the same previous experiences as you, but looking forward to taking annon’s advice and trying FHA

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles