Purchased for $739,000 in August 2006 with a listing that touted a 4% bounty commission to be paid to the buyer’s agent versus the standard 2.5% in San Francisco, and having been 100% financed by the buyer by way of a $591,200 first mortgage and a $147,800 second, the “great 12th floor corner unit with view of the bay and financial district” at the Metropolitan known as 333 1st Street #1205 is currently scheduled to hit the courthouse steps in San Francisco at 2pm this afternoon.
The buyer of #1205 was $34,192 past due on his first mortgage within a year, but a courthouse sale scheduled for October 2007 was postponed due to bankruptcy. It’s now four years later and the bank is due over $837,109 on their $591,200 loan alone.
No word on whether or not the Occupy movement plans to protest this injustice as well.
Bay Buildings: The Metropolitan (333/355 1st Street) [SocketSite]
The Details Behind Yesterday’s ‘Day Of Action’ Home In San Francisco [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by john

    Not the right metaphore but…
    drive it like its stolen!
    then give it back to the real owner

  2. Posted by WH

    What will it be priced at when it hits the steps – the $837K figure or the $591K figure? If it’s a 1000 sf 2BR, the $837 PSF is probably pushing it a bit, depending on views condition of the property. I would definitely offer at the $591

  3. Posted by WH

    Nevermind, it’s a 709 sf 1BR.

  4. Posted by lol

    Well, he sure didn’t waste his money on rent 😉
    Seriously, 1 – the bank messed up by lending to this guy. 100% financing? With a 4% fee? They were asking for trouble. A shaft well deserved. 2 – We’re 5 years past the bubbletop and roughly 4 years after the first signs of distress. Looks like someone was asleep at the wheel at the bank.
    Point well made on the OWS misguided attention on bubble profiteers. I wonder what people will remember about all of this 70 years from now? Reckless bankers or overextended greedy dim-bulbs. For the GD, history is mostly on the side of the little guy thanks to popular imagery broadcast by movies (Grapes of Wrath, It’s a Wonderful Life).
    Nobody’s siding for the guy saying “I told you so” to his peers who wildly overextended in the 1920s, which is unfair I think. Everyone is easily forgetting their own sins of the mid-aughts. I sure forgot mine.

  5. Posted by J

    Now that’s what you call a strategic default!

  6. Posted by condoshopper

    Wow, i am jealous of this guy. Does this one win the cake for gaming the bank/taxpayer out of the most money?

  7. Posted by tipster

    No, condoshopper. The 2006 seller wins that prize.
    Cost him an extra 1.5%, but I’m sure he had no shortage of realtors calling up their “clients” telling them what a fabulous deal this was.

  8. Posted by condoshopper

    interesting point about the extra 1.5%, i wonder why they had to offer extra commission when these condos sold themselves back then.

  9. Posted by eddy

    Well played.

  10. Posted by kaya

    It might be worth awarding a victim-of-the-month prize highlighting some of these achievements.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles