428 Grove
How does a home which was purchased for $695,000 in 2004 return to the market as a short sale listed for $799,000 in 2011?
When its first mortgage was refinanced for $715,000 in 2005; a second note for $45,000 was added in March 2010 following a first notice of default for $43,395; and second notice of default was filed a year later with its first mortgage $53,103 past due as of February.
And speaking of seconds, the single-family home at 428 Grove with an unwarranted (but rooms counted in the listing) one-bedroom in-law below is also scheduled to hit the courthouse steps on September second.
Oh, and the lot next door? As plugged-in people know, that would be Parcel H which sold to a developer for three million dollars late last year and is zoned for mix-use housing.
∙ Listing: 428 Grove (3/2.5) – $799,000 [MLS]
Seeking Bids Brought To You By The Letters H And J [SocketSite]
The Prices For Hayes Valley Parcels H And J [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Marten Evertz

    Too bad the lot doesn’t include those three parking spots in the back.

  2. Posted by bgelldawg

    I looked at this when it was on the market in 2004. We were unable to view the in law unit because it was occupied at the time. The comment on MLS now seems to indicate there are still tenants there.
    It is a sweet little house, but in an odd location. There is a very unattractive cheap motel across the street and the empty lot next door = years of construction noise and debris.
    The side of this building is currently covered with grafitti.

  3. Posted by CH

    So they haven’t paid their mortgage in two years while they are collecting $2,800/mo in rent per the listing and now they want the bank to forgive some of their debt?

  4. Posted by GOLSF

    Just stopped by on my lunch break.
    The upstairs 2BR is currently occupied by two tenants who would need to be compensated to move.
    The in law unit is currently vacant. It is an unremarkable and very dark (i.e., little natural light) ‘cave.’
    The garage has been converted into a recording studio. The seller has agreed to reconvert the studio to a garage upon departure.
    The 2BR has good potential, but needs modernization. The original casement windows are still in place and the kitchen needs to be redone. The porch in the back is nice and connects through both bedrooms.
    Contrary to the description above, the seller’s agent claims that the entire SFH is included in the listing. There is not a separate auction scheduled for the 1BR. The lender is anxious to see a SS as opposed to auction and has already postponed once.
    [Editor’s Note: Perhaps poorly worded on our part, but we’re not suggesting a separate auction for the one-bedroom, simply that the total bedroom count on the listing includes the unwarranted one-bedroom below. Regardless, great report and comment. Cheers!]

  5. Posted by A.T.

    The ’04 purchaser did okay! A couple of cash-out refis, sounds like they made few, if any, payments for 7 years, and even took rental income out! Then got out of it with a short sale or REO. Beats working if you can get some sucker (read U.S. gummint) to let you pull that off.

  6. Posted by BobN

    “There is a very unattractive cheap motel across the street”
    I suppose it’s difficult to find an attractive motel. As for “cheap”, well, it ain’t Pacific Heights, but then neither is most of the country…
    The motel is a national chain, and the current owner/franchisee???? has made it an enormous improvement over what it once was. It’s clean, very well maintained, and a darned good neighbor, if I may say so from a couple blocks away. I’ve recommended it to friends on regular person’s budget and they were quite pleased. And there’s a good burger joint attached, to boot.

  7. Posted by bgelldawg

    No offense to the motel intended. I just remember feeling that I would be embarrassed to have people visit and see that across the street.

  8. Posted by blaise5000

    maybe a dumb question, but why would the current tennants need to be compensated?
    since it is not a rent-controlled unit, couldn’t the new owner just double the rent instead of going through the OMI process?

  9. Posted by Mole Man

    The banks are the suckers who are eating this. That is part of why the economy is so bad off. Banks are holding onto unproductive assets. The bubble bust was about six trillion or more by now depending on which numbers are used, and the government has put less than a trillion toward that. That may be way too much, but it is still only around seventeen cents per dollar of correction. This is relevant to the economics of this situation as well as the moral lessons that might be taken away.

  10. Posted by GOLSF

    Regarding the Days Inn, I’ve owned a condo across the street from this property since 2003. While the property is an eyesore, they’re not a bad neighbor though. The location is never loud and a succession of interesting and fun restaurants have been run in the former manager’s office and quarters.
    Regarding the compensation of the tenants, I’m only repeating what the listing agent related. She indicated that each tenant would need to be paid ~ $4500 ‘relocation’ to get them to depart. She also advised I speak with a real estate lawyer to determine a legal approach as she was only offering a non-legal opinion.
    It does seem ridiculous that the owners of this property have been allowed to continue to collect rent to the tune of $3,600 per month while at the same time not even attempting to meet their debt obligation. Now, they’re passing the buck along to the U.S. tax payers, and the mortgage insurers who will be expected to pick up the tab. How ironic would it be if they were both real estate professionals…

  11. Posted by curmudgeon

    blaise5000, why do you think this isn’t rent controlled? All units built before 1979 are rent controlled. You may think this is exempt because it’s an SFR, but SFR’s with secondary units (even if unpermitted) are under rent control. Also, even if units don’t have rent control, they still have eviction protections. I’m no expert at all, but I think since the secondary unit is vacant, a purchaser might not have the right to evict the tenants? In any case, the tenants have enough on their side that they clearly feel they can ask for some baksheesh to skeedaddle.

  12. Posted by blaise5000

    curmudgeon, that is exactly what i was assuming. thank you for the clarification about rent control wrt SFR w/ extra rented unit (warranted or not).

  13. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 428 Grove Street has just been reduced to $699,000. Once again, purchased for $695,000 in 2004 and scheduled to hit the courthouse steps on September second.

  14. Posted by GOLSF

    They can keep dropping the asking price…once a prospective buyer sees the disclosures and realizes that there are numerous liens against this property from utilities and municipalities, roof issues solved via patchwork, and considers the potential of owning a property adjacent to a large scale multi-year development initiative, and has tenants to deal with….they’ll think twice. Oh, did I mention the side of the building filled with graffiti that the ‘owners’ never addressed??

  15. Posted by SocketSite

    The listing for 428 Grove Street was just withdrawn from the MLS, we’re guessing it’s because the property was taken back by the bank yesterday with no bidders at $650,000 on the courthouse steps.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles