Over 50% Off the 2006 Purchase Price: 809 W. Oakdale in Lakeview

This 3 bedroom bank owned coach house at 809 W. Oakdale in Lakeview has been on the market since July 2009.

Since then, it has been reduced by $137,400.

It is already listed at more than 50% under the 2006 purchase price and is under even the 1997 purchase price.

The listing doesn’t tell us much except that it has a rooftop deck and a 2-story fireplace.

All three bedrooms are on the second level.

It looks like it might have parking, but the listing isn’t clear.

It also appears to not have air conditioning- but that too isn’t very clear.

Is this now a deal?

Connie Ritchie at Re/Max Suburban has the listing. See the few pictures here.

Unit CHE: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths

  • Sold in April 1991 for $245,000
  • Sold in October 1992 for $243,000
  • Sold in November 1997 for $325,000
  • Sold in September 2002 for $592,000
  • Sold in August 2006 for $670,000
  • Lis pendens in June 2007
  • Bank owned in February 2009
  • Listed in July 2009 for $449,900
  • Reduced numerous times
  • Currently listed for $312,500
  • Assessments of $1440 a month (includes air conditioning (?), parking (?), cable)
  • Taxes of $13263
  • Bedroom #1: 17×18
  • Bedroom #2: 10×13
  • Bedroom #3: 10×13

18 Responses to “Over 50% Off the 2006 Purchase Price: 809 W. Oakdale in Lakeview”

  1. Those assessments and taxes are brutal — each is about as much as the mortgage.

    0
    0
  2. I saw this place – it is a very odd layout, and needs a ton of work. It’s also dark. But it is a ton of space for the money (assessments and taxes aside).

    But it for the 1991 purchase price and you may be okay long term.

    0
    0
  3. $13k of taxes, wtf? And why are there assessments beyond common area/snow removal type stuff? Something is really weird…

    0
    0
  4. I would think long and hard before even assuming those ridiculous assessments and the tax bill. That doesn’t bode well for the selling price. Someone paid $670,000 for this and didn’t even renovate it? At least they are getting a new bath out of it (well taking one).

    0
    0
  5. I saw this place and it was an absolute dump. The assessments really don’t make much sense given the building and the place is dark and run down. The entire place looks like my grandmother’s basement (including the spiral staircase and circular living room).

    I don’t believe for a second that somebody paid $670,000 for this in an arms length transaction.

    0
    0
  6. So $2500/mo. not including the mortgage… This place is doomed.

    0
    0
  7. High taxes on a place like this? A buyer might be able to swallow that figuring a new assessment or appeal would bring them down.

    But I don’t see how anyone could justify spending nearly as much as their mortgage payment on assessments on this place. This isn’t a full service high rise. Something very, very bad must have happened here…

    0
    0
  8. I’m guessing that the realtor entered in the wrong tax and assessment data. I can’t imagine that those numbers are correct.

    0
    0
  9. if it’s wrong data it’s been there for a while and never corrected.

    0
    0
  10. Apparently Chicago real estate is all dogs. Thinking about the market for this POS makes my head hurt.

    0
    0
  11. I noticed that at the end of the list of “benefits” associated with that assessment, it says to “See remarks” for more information. Any idea what those remarks say?

    That assessment is outrageous for what is essentially a townhouse. Is there a special going on right now?

    0
    0
  12. Given the implosion of the value of this place, does anyone know if that is actually a basis to reduce assessed real estate taxes? Any RE attorneys on here familiar with the process?

    0
    0
  13. It says on the listing unit CHE, isn’t it a coach house? Why assessments on a coach house would be that much a month is crazy

    0
    0
  14. Old listings for this unit and unit #CHS show assmts of $1382, so what is listed is likely correct. Both have been listed at 2,850 sf.

    #G2 is also for sale now for $299K for 1,550 sf and assmts of only $343. I guess the CH unit assmts reflect the add’l SF plus exterior space?

    Michael, the agent remarks only indicate the need for special riders. These are standard for REO sales.

    0
    0
  15. ryan, yes it would be as long as you have an appraisal with market sales that confirm your purchase price. The 2009 assmt reflects a market value of $988,720.

    0
    0
  16. When someone purchases a home for 300K that was last assessed at 1 million, is there any guarantee that the assessor will have to reduce your property tax bill? I just had an appeal denied and I’m wondering how much of a sure thing appeals are for people willing to hire a lawyer or jump through whatever hoops are required.

    0
    0
  17. There is no way this place is 2,850 sf. It is more in the 1800-2000 range. The listing is off with the number of rooms and locations as well (only 2 bedrooms upstairs). Ir is also a little hard to classify this as a coach house or townhouse. It is much closer to a duplex. When my realtor showed me this place he initially thought we had gone to the wrong place and I actually couldn’t see someone buying this at any price. The taxes and assessments are way too high for what you get.

    0
    0
  18. I’m so glad I found this site and all these comments, I noticed the property online today and was researching a little before deciding whether to go view it. It’s actually gone below it’s 1991 price now at $219,900 but those taxes and assessments? Yikes!

    0
    0

Leave a Reply