65 Zircon Place View
On a day like today, it’s all about the decks and ability to soak up the outdoors.
Built in 1969 but remodeled since; bought for $1,800,500 in December 2000; and now back on the market asking $1,779,000 in October 2011; 65 Zircon Place features three decks, two with panoramic views, and one with walls for privacy and to keep out the wind.
65 Zircon Place Living
And yes, it’s officially Noe Valley and touting easy freeway access.
∙ Listing: 65 Zircon Place (4/4) – $1,779,000 [MLS]

25 thoughts on “Zircon (Not Zirconium) Views”
  1. There is something fishy about this whole series of transactions:
    6/17/2009 Grant Deed Resale Sirsi, Sunanda G Srinath, Srikar 1108053154
    1/13/2005 Grant Deed Resale Srinath Srikar 2002 Trust Srinath-Srikar Family Lvg 2004 110516065
    3/8/2002 Grant Deed Resale Srinath, Srikar Srinath Trust 164045327
    12/20/2000 $1,800,500 Grant Deed Resale Quatman, Suzi Srinath-Srikar Family Lvg 2004 164045145
    Why would someone sell their property to a famly trust, then back and forth between family members? Is this some kind of tax dodge?

  2. NoeValley Jim wrote:
    > Why would someone sell their property
    > to a famly trust, then back and forth
    > between family members? Is this some
    > kind of tax dodge?
    I don’t know anything about this property, but I know some people that have “sold” their home to a trust or LLC they control to reduce the assessed value (and over the years while looking up property in the tax assessor database I have found that MANY “high profile” people in the Bay Area have assessed values WAY below where they should be).
    over the years I have noticed that many high profile people in the Bay Area

  3. So FormerAptBroker, are you saying that the people employing this scheme deliberately sell the home to the trust or LLC for a lower-than-market price in order to artificially lower the assessed value? If not, how are they getting the value for tax purposes lowered?
    Not that I would ever do this with any property I might own in the future, but inquiring minds want to know.
    [Editor’s Note: Although we don’t believe that’s what’s going on here, yes, FormerAptBroker is: Behind The Sperling’s Shocking “Sale” Of 2323 Hyde For $9,000,000.]

  4. Wow, sounds like more of the “only the little people pay taxes” mantra.
    I hope SF Assessor Phil Ting is visiting Socketsite.
    With today’s post and the Sperling’s Shocking sale thread, I believe this procedure is probably wide spread.

  5. Editor, thanks for the follow-up note.
    NoeValleyBob, if we assume you are correct and that those entries are just for refinancing, then why have an ownership change recorded at all?
    Same question goes to fred: if the owner just wanted their assessed value lowered, then they could have just as easily done that without having an ownership change recorded. Easier, in fact.
    I’m perfectly willing to accept that I’m missing something here, but I tend toward Jackson’s opinion that this is just a barely-legal tax dodge.

  6. According to Google Maps, the neighbors appear to have installed a basketball half-court directly next to this house.

  7. This is a beautiful house, awesome location on a cul-de-sac, quiet street, impeccable views. Bargain price too.
    BTW: so what if a neighbor has a half court basketball court in their yard? Do you like this, or see it as a problem?

  8. As someone who lives next door to a house with a basketball hoop out front IT DRIVES ME INSANE. The kids yelling, and the constant thumpa thumpa thumpa of the ball is not something I’d wish on my worst enemy. Okay, wait, yes I would wish it on my worst enemy.


  10. @modernqueen: How much is going to cost you to get the teenagers next door to go somewhere else during the open houses?

  11. Foggy, windy, cold, practically in Diamond Heights, too far up the hill to walk to anything. Not my favorite corner of Noe.
    It does have some nice green space nearby, if that is important to you.

  12. Here’s the deal. The last sale was 12/20/2000 for $1.85M. On 3/8/2002 there was a transfer to a trust, on 1/13/2005 there was a transfer to another trust that apparently was not at arm’s length, on 6/17/2009 there was a transfer on an affidavit which probably involved transfer to an heir from probate, followed on the same date by a deed of distribution which supports the inheritance assumption. Finally on June 16, 2011 there was a transfer from one trust to another and judging by the names someone got married or simply changed the name on the title so that another family member was included as a beneficiary of the new trust. The lawyers made a lot but there’s nothing here that appears all that unusual or nefarious.

  13. Thanks for the history.
    What is meant by “transfer to another trust that apparently was not at arm’s length”?
    Don’t transaction fees apply to property ownership changes when outside of spouse and/or child relationship?

  14. I don’t get this. What are the limits? Can I set up a corporation and have it buy my house for $1? Or for that matter, can I sell it to my girlfriend for $1 and then buy it back for a $1? Is arms’ length the only thing that the assessor has to go on? Why would they ever permit related party sales to determine the assessed value?

  15. Damn nimbys who hate bball.
    Oh jeez, quit being a whiner. You asked “so what?” and it turns out that people had a “what.” No need to be butthurt about it.

  16. Firstly, dont you have better things in life to trawl the internet into other people property values. And if you do a little more reserach (even using generic valuations on Zillow/Trulia, epraisals) you will see a very close estimat of current value which is very close to the tax records.
    And if you really want to understand tax laws and title transfers, go and pay a professional instead of guessing and posting C***

Leave a Reply

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