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]

10 thoughts on “Five Years Of “Free” Foreclosure Living At 333 First Nears An End”
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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