869 Alvarado

Speaking of kicking the foreclosure can down the road, as we first wrote in May 2008:

Described as a “gut check for SF realtors” when it sold on 6/1/2005 (establishing a new Noe Valley neighborhood comp at $1,500,000), 869 Alvarado appears to have been refinanced a few times since closing escrow. And if PropertyShark is correct, the property is currently facing foreclosure with an unpaid mortgage balance of $1,497,746.

That balance due of $1,497,745 grew to $1,638,054 in 2009; to $1,800,473 in 2010; and to $1,878,099 as of three months ago. Keep in mind that’s simply the amount owed on the first mortgage which was written for $1,350,000 in 2006. There’s also a 2006 vintage second mortgage for $300,000 and a 2008 vintage third for $133,000.

Next Tuesday, 869 Alvarado is once again scheduled to hit the courthouse steps. While we’re not holding our breath, it’s always better to be prepared (and plugged-in, of course).

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by EBGuy

    The owner also appears to have an interest in 4148 23rd Street, which received a NOTS on 9/1/2010.

  2. Posted by eddy

    It’s funny EBGuy, but in my ongoing perusal of sfre over the years I’ve started to find more and more situations where the same person is responsible for more than one; and often 3+ of these type of situations. Just stumbled upon one today where the same party was involved in 4 deals, one of which they just walked from entirely.

  3. Posted by Modernqueen

    Greed and irresponsibility, pure and simple.

  4. Posted by sfrenegade

    $1.783M taken out on this house, which means they pocketed $283K on refi, and pocketed up to an additional $550K by non-payment for the last few years ($1.9M – $1.35M). That’s over $800K, so the deadbeat “owner” will certainly get the last laugh.
    These guys are actual triple-deadbeats — they already lost 4174 26th to foreclosure. It looks like their mortgages got sold to Kondaur Capital, who may have foreclosed and then sold it to two realtors who then sold it:

  5. Posted by eddy

    Sorta gives a new meaning to Bad Apple around these parts… At what point does it become illegal?

  6. Posted by shza

    I assume the relevant legal line would be at criminal fraud, eddy. Which would be nearly impossible to prosecute or prove.

  7. Posted by meep

    if the owner took that equity cash and put it in the bank they would have the last laugh
    but it seems unlikely
    taking equity out of a property and using it as down payment on another property you cannot afford was once considered a good investment.i remember people being leveraged on 4-5 properties

  8. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    eddy wrote:
    > It’s funny EBGuy, but in my ongoing perusal
    > of sfre over the years I’ve started to find
    > more and more situations where the same
    > person is responsible for more than one;
    > and often 3+ of these type of situations.
    It is not just real estate if you find a person that is selling Herbalife trying to get rich in MLM you will find that most of them have tried other MLM “paths to riches”…
    If you find someone that just sent in $1,000 to get their inheritance from an unknown uncle in Europe odds are they are waiting for the money from the guy in Nigeria (WITH THE CAPS LOCK ON) that needs their help getting millions out of his country…
    And almost all my sisters’ friends with maxed out Nordstrom cards also have maxed out Nieman Marcus and Macy’s cards…

  9. Posted by eddy

    @fab, too true. Too true.

  10. Posted by elbee

    Just old school empire building with OPM. Had a college landlady with 30+ properties at one point, then interest rates rose.

  11. Posted by kel

    Time to bring back debtors prisons.

  12. Posted by steve

    While you all are probably right that the borrower is a sleezebag, let’s remember there are lenders on the other side of the deal, happily writing those loans.

  13. Posted by Rillion

    The borrowers are scum that deserve prison, the lenders are poor innocent dupes that we need to bail out and make sure that they get bonuses.

  14. Posted by A.T.

    Hey, the loans are secured by real estate. And real estate only goes up, especially in SF. So you can’t blame the lender for making a 100% safe loan! Er, until it wasn’t.
    This, of course, is why the banks in this country are still in crisis. These loans (I imagine — non-conforming) were not securitized and thus the lender takes the hit. And today, the loans are probably still on the balance sheet at 100%. Multiply this place X several million and you see the magnitude.

  15. Posted by [anon.ed]

    ^ really?
    Grow up.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles