152 4th Avenue Cleanup

A bid of $1,029,500 has been received for the Lake District Victorian within which the mummified corpse of the homeowner was found among the items hoarded by her surviving adult daughter.  And the final sale price could go higher.

As the mother’s death was never reported, the sale will require court confirmation.  And while the $1,029,500 bid for the house has tentatively been accepted, interested parties will have an opportunity to bid higher at the probate hearing for the estate, the date for which has yet to be scheduled.

As a plugged-in reader first reported and provided a peek inside when the property hit the market listed for $928,000: “the front half of the property is in great shape with plenty of potential (two beautiful original fire places, lincrusta in the hallway, original trim, etc),” but the back half is another story.

152 4th Avenue Bathroom

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Great bones.

  2. Posted by Oh Dear

    Add another $300k and you will have a great house…then return to market….then it will price at X? Guesses?

    • Posted by myincpen

      My guess is they tear down the whole thing, rebuild, and list for $3M.

      • Posted by soccermom

        Good luck getting permission from preservation planning to tear down that façade.

  3. Posted by soccermom

    I guess it’s not too soon any more. Hope the former occupant daughter is getting some help.
    Here’s what I got for ya:

    There could be some preservation issues.
    The house puts historic use in a whole new context.
    If the new owner winds up with any possession issues, he should contact Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler.

    Incidentally, I see that Paul Feig has an upcoming remake of the classic both retro in nature and pro-girl. Bound to be a Hillary Ghostbuster meme in the next 12 months. You read that S here first.

    • Posted by soccermom

      My Girl Hilly Clinton:

      “The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported,” she said. “I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

      FIRE UP THE PROTON PACKS AND DON’T CROSS THE STREAMS

  4. Posted by MDG399

    I hear people are dying to get into that house….

  5. Posted by ElitistPig

    I smell a Weekend at Bernie’s III, I’m sure Andrew McCarthy and Johnathan Silverman are free.

    Larry and Richard are desperate to find a place for Pride Week, but everything is booked!

  6. Posted by Dixon Hill

    State real estate law requires disclosure for a period of 3 years if any death occurred in the home. Several years ago, a high-end apartment in my neighborhood was the scene of a grisly homicide. The unit sat vacant for 3 years before a new tenant moved-in. I have no idea if the eventual renter received a disclosure or even knew what had happened.

    • Posted by soccermom

      If you want to be legalistic about it, based on the condition of the body when found, the death happened some time ago. Add court process and rehab time and the developers will be out of the 3 year window by the time this is ready to sell. All that said, good conscience and the very obvious issue that the buyers would quickly learn the backstory of this house means that the recent past will be disclosed or the agents involved will be set up for a big liability.

      • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

        Right – disclosure is required if the death occurred within 3 years of the offer to purchase. But the Code does not immunize an owner or agent from liability if there is an inquiry about a death on the property at any time if the owner or agent misrepresents the facts in response (i.e. if asked, you have to disclose).

      • Posted by Dixon Hill

        I agree with Soccermom. A smart agent would disclose. In this market it be unlikely to matter, anyway.

        • Posted by Dixon Hill

          Also, if the buyer brought a suit later for failure to disclose, I wouldn’t want to be the person trying to prove that more than 3 years had elapsed based on the “condition of the corpse.” A jury might not be sympathetic to that argument.

          • Posted by JWS

            Which is why you always elect to arbitrate instead of trial by jury. Everybody else is correct that disclosing regardless is the smart move (especially if a murder/suicide), and even if you do not disclose because the three years are past, if somebody directly inquires you must let them know.

    • Posted by anon

      as if that wasn’t done here?

    • Posted by san FronziScheme

      Every one and their grandma uses Google to search whatever there is on a property.

      When googling that address the 5th top hit has “The Lake Mummy House”. There’s that.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme

        Then at the bottom search, there’s “Who Lives On 4th Ave San Francisco CA – Spokeo”. Ironical.

  7. Posted by Lori

    I think it will go higher at the probate hearing.

  8. Posted by 4th Gen SFer

    I think it’s going to be bought by a RE investor, then totally redone inside, painted and shored up outside & possibly bring in $3-$4m as we’ve been seeing here on the site.

  9. Posted by Hugh

    Really curious about who is selling the house, and who nets the proceeds.

    Sounds very likely that the mentally ill daugher/de facto owner of the house was more or less swindled out of ownership over some lien that had nothing to do with mortgage or property tax. She has serious mental health issues, and will likely end up in the same situation as most other mentally ill people in SF (alternating between SROs, SF General, and the streets).

    Who stands to benefit here, besides the flipper who will gut the place and relist it at 3x the sale price?

    All the coverage I’ve seen focuses on either the macabre, or fodder for obvious jokes. Nothing about the dynamics of taking a house from a mentally ill person.

  10. Posted by steph

    “Who stands to benefit here, besides the flipper who will gut the place and relist it at 3x the sale price? All the coverage I’ve seen focuses on either the macabre, or fodder for obvious jokes. Nothing about the dynamics of taking a house from a mentally ill person.”

    That is right.

    I do worry about the well being of the mental ill daughter ( aka de facto owner ). Sales proceeds should benefit her.

    Does anyone know about who will net the 3X sales price. My sincere sympathy goes to the daughter.

  11. Posted by anon

    Somehow not paying property tax is swindling? No, it’s not. Not understanding what happened here, and then positing open ended hand wringing type questions is more unfair than what actually took place here. The mother died intestate. The daughter was mentally ill and lost the home. The court will have appointed a trust. The trust will certainly include the daughter. All aspersions about “taking” and “flipper” are only uneducated types of bias.

    • Posted by anon

      err, somehow taking the property of a tax scofflaw, that was …

  12. Posted by soccermom

    Our court probate system is set up precisely to ensure that parties unable to help themselves are afforded the protection of the law. A judge will approve the sale (will conduct an auction). This is a much better outcome for all involves than if the property had been auctioned for the past due taxes, as was planned.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles