1532 Church Street
As we reported this past November:

While some expected it to fly off the market when listed for $895,000 sans tenants two weeks ago, the list price for 1532 Church Street has been reduced a nominal $6,000, now asking $889,000.

And speaking of said ex-tenants, if a plugged-in reader seeking to set the record straight is correct, they were driven out of the house on August 31 and now reside in Palm Springs.

The sale of 1532 Church Street closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $850,000 having been purchased for $730,000 this past September with tenants in place.
And as we wrote when the property first hit the market listed for $699,000 in August: “the single-family Noe home is sure to generate a fair amount of interest and most likely an eviction notice soon after its sale.”
After Two Weeks, 1532 Church Street Is…Reduced [SocketSite]
A Quick Tenant-ectomy And Attempted Flip [SocketSite]
Sure To Generate Interest (And Likely An Eviction Notice) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by nkotb

    Aside from all the great posts here on Socketsite, is there a go-to place for prospective buyers to learn the ins & outs of dealing with tenants in place at the time of purchase?
    e.g.: what makes a tenant “protected”, what does that mean?
    Do the same rules regarding OMI evictions apply to a 2-unit building that apply to a SFH? What are some carrots/sticks that might make the process involve less brain damage for everyone?

  2. Posted by [anon.ed]

    You should go to the tenant’s union website , as well as a San Francisco real estate law firm website, . Between those two sources you’ll be conversant with everything you need to know about these things.

  3. Posted by nkotb

    Thanks, that looks like some good reading especially the law firm site. I’ll dig in. Should keep me from getting a big STFU from the SFTU.

  4. Posted by PN

    Can someone run the numbers? Did the flipper make anything?

  5. Posted by tipster

    The flipper probably made about $10-15K.
    Don’t quit your day job.

  6. Posted by [anon.ed]

    ^ There’s no chance that’s even remotely accurate. The seller was the broker, so they got paid on both the buy and the sale. They only paid half, or 2 1/2 % on the sale for around 22K. Transfer tax would have been about 6K. Pro-rated property tax would have been around 3K. Even if they paid out 20K (unlikely) to the tenants and spent 2K (unlikely) painting and cleaning that’s a net of ~84K or so.
    [Editor’s Note: With that we’ll agree. The key variable was the tenants, and the key line from a reader’s report: “They were all [harassed] so much by their landlord that they ended up moving to Palm Springs.”]

  7. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Funny logic discounting the flipper/broker commissions. Didn’t the broker work for that commission? If so then their sweat equity needs to be considered in the net profit equation. If not then why are brokers earning these high commissions?

  8. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Why are you using the word “logic,” first of all? The numbers were given, flatly. Every situation is different. (Also, why didn’t, and why don’t, you take Tipster to task for his continual inaccuracies? instead of parsing the true information I provide?) In this case, a broker bought and sold the property. Sometimes there isn’t even a broker involved. So please the word “logic” has meaning. I’m not talking about a model for what somebody else might have done if they used a broker to handle both the purchase and sale. I’m talking about this case, and the comment “don’t quit your day job.” Well, it was the day job.

  9. Posted by tipster

    Buyer: Antonio Castellucci
    Selling agent: James Appenrodt, and no “seller is licensed real estate agent” disclosur
    I checked this before I posted. It isn’t inaccurate because I didn’t check, it’s inaccurate (if it really is) because none of the information is consistent with your assertion.
    I do check, and I looked up the buyer’s name to see if he was a real estate agent (just not the listing agent) before I posted that last night. I couldn’t find any indication he was an agent at all.
    So no, this wasn’t any inaccuracy on my part. I check before I post.

  10. Posted by lol

    A bit of net etiquette, please. Posting people’s names is not good practice. People can follow the links and see for themselves, we’re all grown ups. Now anyone Googling these 2 people’s names will be directed to a tipster-vs-fluj pointless fight.

  11. Posted by Willow

    Good outcome for everyone… (Seller probably made 50-60K & the Tenant got paid to go away.) The eventual buyer however spent 850K for a smallish house on a tiny lot on Church St. Oh well, at least they will be within walking distance to Toast!

  12. Posted by tipster

    good point lol, editor, maybe you can put a couple of randomly placed asterisks in place of real letters in the two names I posted above so they don’t show up on any searches.

  13. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “It isn’t inaccurate because I didn’t check, it’s inaccurate (if it really is) because none of the information is consistent with your assertion”
    What you construe as information is neither here nor there. But your 10 to 15K was wrong, and so was your snark.

  14. Posted by [anon.ed]

    “directed to a tipster-vs-fluj pointless fight”
    Pointless? Try pointed. Guy weighs in with incorrect takes + a snide dig. I call him out. He still talks. I call him out again. The end.
    And his response is that he always checks before

  15. Posted by tipster

    I provided proof of my position, I missed the proof of your position. Before you call me out, maybe you could back up your assertion as well as I backed up mine?

  16. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Look. You’re not equipped to argue with me, nor to speak with the definitive + dismisive tone you use when it comes to these matters. Apparently you didn’t know that the Appenrodts are Laurel Realty? That’s not my fault. You should chill out and let people who know things say things. You don’t see me weighing in on MMT! Everything is not the way 1’s and 0’s make it out.

  17. Posted by tipster

    So what, the listing agent was a realtor? That’s not in dispute. However, the listed Sept 2011 buyer doesn’t have that same name.
    For a guy not equipped to argue with you, I seem to have a better understanding of logic than you do. Proving that the last name of the listing agent is a realtor doesn’t really prove anything, as long as the listed owner has a different last name. Are you “equipped” to follow that logical line of reasoning?

  18. Posted by [anon.ed]

    Again with “logic” ??? Good grief does that word get abused on the interwebs. I told you what it was. If you knew anything about the context, it’s in fact logic that I’m employing. How does “verbatim taking tax information and regurgitating it” = logic? Look, think what you want. But keep “proof” and “logic” to yourself.

  19. Posted by El Bombero

    I’m totally confused.
    @[anon.ed]- is the guy who bought the place in September 2011 a realtor or not?
    If so, did he act as agent in the January 2012 sale?
    Was any disclosure made that the seller was a licensed real estate agent?

  20. Posted by [anon.ed]

    I’ve said plenty.

  21. Posted by eddy

    anon.ed posted at January 12, 2012 8:18 AM:
    The seller was the broker, so they got paid on both the buy and the sale. They only paid half, or 2 1/2 % on the sale
    I suspect asking him to repeat himself is not going to change his statement. But it does underscore that tipsters obfuscation tactics are effective.

  22. Posted by Rillion

    Tipster – I think you need a better search engine. While I’m not 100% positive it is the same person, I was quickly able to find someone with the same name as the buyer you listed and even their liscense #, and the fact that they appear to have a rather large real estate rental business (Home Realty Investments).

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles