Foreclosure of the Week: 1073 East 19th Street
This is the first foreclosure property we’ve seen in this market cycle that hasn’t been run down or in a fairly poor neighborhood. What’s more, the foreclosee had owned the house since 1994, so this wasn’t a case of someone over-stretching during the boom. He did, however, take $720,000 out of the house back in…
This is the first foreclosure property we’ve seen in this market cycle that hasn’t been run down or in a fairly poor neighborhood. What’s more, the foreclosee had owned the house since 1994, so this wasn’t a case of someone over-stretching during the boom. He did, however, take $720,000 out of the house back in 2002. The lien on the house is now $674,320, quite a bit less than we imagine its market value is. The big question is, however, whether this is an aberration or the first of many such middle-market homes that will go into foreclosure in the coming months. The auction for this property takes place on Thursday at 3 p.m. in Room 261 at 360 Adams Street.
1073 E. 19th Street [Property Shark] GMAP
Photo by Nicholas Strini for Property Shark
“…aberration or the first of many such middle-market homes that will go into foreclosure in the coming months.”
I’d predict the latter but it all depends on where employment numbers are headed.
If memory serves me correctly, there was a house in PPS on Marlborough a few years back (5? 7?) which foreclosed an was purchased sight unseen by the family that now lives there. So, for whatever reason, it does happen now and then.
The owner is a cliff-hanger artist.
He will pay a minute before midnight.
I know someone like that.
He will only pay an invoice if it is attached to a court order, and he will never pay until the last second.
Stoner should follow up on this.
My understanding is, if the bank is a real bank, not just a mortgage factory, they give owners lots of time and opportunity to sell the property before they foreclose. They just want the mortgage satisfied, and it’s cheaper for them not to have to foreclose. Owner may have held on too long, hoping to get financial affairs in order, or become too ill to oversee things, or been unwilling to face reality that it was over. Sometimes there’s shennanigans on the mortgager’s part, sometimes on the mortgagee’s part, but foreclosures aren’t common in a market like NYC because properties can usually be sold before it comes to that.
There was some problems with an extension on the house started in 1999. Perhaps the C of O is not in order? Lot is listed as having 2 buildings.
What do you think this house would rent for? Seems like you could cover the mortgage with a rent of $3,500-$4,000.
Hey, 12:08 here, and again, my apologies for ignorance.
But this really is not clear, and 12:16 certainly isn’t helping to clarify anything.
If he can’t make payments, he obviously is in trouble. But it sure looks like this house is worth more than $674,320.
Doesn’t the $674,320 likely represent the mortgage that he is in default on?
Even if he has other insane amounts of debt, or even a second mortgage that he can’t make payments on (and I really doubt that the $720k equity suck from 2002 is a second mortgage – sounds more like the loan he is now in trouble with), wouldn’t he at least have a chance to get some money back by selling and getting the lien paid off? seems like he’d easily have a lot more cash to work with at that point.
Why lose it all?
But the house is worth probably a lot more than the 674K mortgage he still owes. So again why does he not sell it?
Because he can’t for less than the mortgage?