501 Beale #PH1E: Living
On the heels of the Watermark Penthouse #1B’s apples to apples 31 percent decline in value (below its 2006 sale), Watermark Penthouse #1E has returned to the market.
As we wrote this past October:

A plugged-in reader reports: “For those of you in the market for a penthouse, Unit #PH1E at the Watermark (501 Beale) was taken back by the lender for $1,349,628 on Sept. 15. Talk about bad timing, the former owner bought for $1.523 million in January 2007. This three bedroom 1,362 sq.ft. foreclosure was brought to you courtesy of WaMu.”

Call it a quick flip gone bad as the condo had returned to the market a month after closing asking $1,800,000. Last listed for $1,595,000 before being taken back by the bank.

Now asking $1,224,000 ($899 per square), 19.6 percent below its January 2007 value.
∙ Listing: 501 Beale #PH1E (3/2) 1,362 sqft – $1,224,000 [MLS]
Still Not Cheap, But 31 Percent Cheaper: Watermark Penthouse #1B [SocketSite]
A Pair Of Bank-Owned Penthouses Atop The Watermark (501 Beale) [SocketSite]
From Flippy To Floppy For Watermark (501 Beale) Penthouse #2B [SocketSite]

3 thoughts on “Moving On <strike>Up</strike> Down For A Bank Owned Penthouse In The Sky”
  1. Since this is a REO I was curious if anyone out there has recently purchased a REO. I put in an offer on a REO last month. When my offer was accepted I was asked to sign a a subsequent bank contract (in this case Wells) that basically removed all the terms and conditions of the original purchase contract with very specific language that was skewed heavily towards the seller and gave the buyer little if no protection in the instance that some major defect was discovered during escrow. It seemed far too restrictive and pretty much made the original purchase contract worthless. The property in question for me had far too many unknowns so I rescinded my offer. Is this standard REO practice. If it is, why bother with the original purchase contract.

  2. Yes, that is standard practice. It would be nice if the original contract were enough, but because REOs are hot potatoes that need to be processed at the lowest possible cost the first draft often has gaps. REO means the property is being dumped on your lap at reduced cost because they want to be rid of it. Extra language to make that explicitly clear and legally binding added at the last possible moment is a sloppy, but common way of doing this. Working with an experienced inspector can sometimes mitigate the risk, but anything can happen.

Leave a Reply

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