Bank Owned 2-Bedroom in the Loop for the Price of a 1-Bedroom: 212 W. Washington
This bank owned 2-bedroom at 212 W. Washington, or City Center Lofts, in the Loop has been reduced by $46,600 since October 2009.
And it’s still available.
It has all the bells and whistles including central air, in-unit washer/dryer and even deeded parking included in the price.
The unit is a “soft loft” with high ceilings and hardwood floors throughout but no other authentic loft features.
It appears, from the pictures, that neither bedroom has a window but there is a balcony off the living room.
From the pictures, it also seems the kitchen is still intact. It has maple cabinets and white appliances.
Is this now a deal for the location?
Arcenio Salinas at Crosstown Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #1401: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1 car parking
- Sold in October 1999 for $207,000
- Lis pendens filed in October 2003
- Sold in January 2007 for $281,000
- Sold in April 2007 for $310,000
- Sold in June 2007 for $550,000
- Lis pendens filed in May 2008
- Bank owned in September 2009
- Originally listed in October 2009 for $296,500
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $249,900 (includes the parking)
- Assessments of $522 a month (includes A/C, heat, parking, doorman)
- Taxes of $3218
- Bedroom #1: 13×12
- Bedroom #2: 10×11
- Living room: 15×12
- Kitchen: 13×12
I CAN NOT BELIEVE this sold for $550K just 2.5 years ago.
How did this place sell for double in value over a 6th month period in 2007. Was there major remodeling / upgrading? Or were the buyers sipping a little bit too much of the real estate kool aid that a few realtors on this site try to pass around?
Well, the finishes look pretty low end but yeah, this is a good price for the area. In general, this building and the one next door at 208 W Washington has pretty good values when you consider the space available. And this unit is cheaper than other comparable units in the 2 buildings (not sure of SF though). And the location is pretty good. You’re a few feet from the el and pretty centrally located – but it’s not a “hot” area.
Very odd refinancing in 2007; no way was this rental-quality unit ever worth $550,000. I suspect this building will become a defacto rental building with high turnover, for recent grads and relos, with relatively little stability in occupancy or ownership. Not a good purchase for an owner-occupant.
“How did this place sell for double in value over a 6th month period in 2007.”
Um, fraud? At least that’s what William O.* told me.
*and his anthropomorphisized razor.
“How did this place sell for double in value over a 6th month period in 2007.” Um, fraud?
To be honest, I don’t understand this. How was a fraud committed and, to be sure, how did someone profit from the fraud? Please explain because I really don’t understand it. Many thanks.
“How was a fraud committed ”
It’s been a while since we’ve gone thru it (altho looking at the recorded dox, I’m a little less certain):
1. Seller and Buyer need to be working together. Also need a mortgage broker or title guy or appraiser–all 4 is best, esp if it’s one person wearing all 3 hats.
2. Seller lists prop for ridiculous ask. For example, a $240,000 increase in 2 months with no changes.
3. Buyer signs contract and applies for 100% mortgage.
4. Broker/appraiser validates value of property and gets financing.
5. Buyer closes, never makes (or makes a couple, in order to repeat the fruad more easily) a mortgage payment and the conspirators split $200k+, after paying all the taxes and fees.
Can be done w/o 100% financing, but it’s harder, as they have to put real $$ at risk.
This “borrowed light” thing is ridiculous. anyone know the history on how that made it to code?
That’s a pretty good fraud plan if it can be pulled off. I would guess this would only be able to happen a few times without some banks or mortgage lenders from catching on. Does anyone know the own to rent ratio or the health of the hoa. If it is pretty good than I agree with Gary that this place will sell quickly.
What a dingy dump. Normally I don’t mind actual lofts with windowless bedrooms but this place looks like a dungeon.
And who the hell wants to live in the loop? Even an in-town would be better off in River North or Lincoln Park.
What a mangy, tacky, sad dump. And I still can’t believe you can call a room a bedroom without a window.
Additionally, I have heard over the years that this loft development has serious construction flaws.
I’d only pay the “tear down” or “rehabber” price because I’d want to gut it back to the firewalls and start all over. This space could be a really beautiful and exciting space. I love the building and the location.
Anonymous,
Apparently a lot of people agree with you because the prices are lower in this immediate area. Yet, there’s something to be said for being able to walk to work or walk 50 ft to the el. There’s a large apartment complex going up across the street. I’m very curious as to how that will be received.
“altho looking at the recorded dox, I’m a little less certain”
So, time line is:
1-07, F/C sale for $281k, on a $203k base mortgage–altho 3+ years of no payments would accrue a lot of extra $$
4-07, F/C buyer sells to Corp for $310k, and provides seller financing for $307.5k
7-07, Corp sells for $550k (recorded amount) to buyer who takes out two mortgages totaling $450k. I doubt that the $550k is legit, as there is NO WAY someone put $100k down on this–it’s either a typo on the price or the seller “gave” the buyer a $100k down payment.
7-07, buyer qc’s prop to herself and another person. The other person was *also* a grantee on 3 other QCs recorded the same day (ad several others on other days).
5-08, lis pendens filed by lender and association agst buyer. Meaning, most likely, max 5 payments were made, more likely max of 3.
The qc thing is very weird and I think a big big indicator of fraud.
I wouldn’t want to live in the loop but it wouldn’t be that bad. Easy access to everywhere else in the city and being close to work is important for some people, obviously.
Definitely fraud written all over it. This type of stuff was pretty common. During the go go days, it was easy to pull this stuff off, but everyone had to be involved. Now lenders want 12 month chain of title, won’t allow value increases from last sale within a year. The scheme usually collapses after the payments aren’t made and the lender starts investigating. Usually, it occurs on multiple properties.
A lot of the due diligence that lenders skipped was done to make the process easier for consumers (stated income, etc), but lenders didn’t anticipate the amount of fraud that would occur as a result. Now we put everyone through the ringer…
“A lot of the due diligence that lenders skipped was done to make the process easier for consumers (stated income, etc), but lenders didn’t anticipate the amount of fraud that would occur as a result.”
Or, in the case of some of the MCs, didn’t care. Are the lenders making it clear that they’ll hang out any brokers who get “sloppy”?
Anon(tfo):
They already used the brokers as the fall guy. True third party mortgage brokers are dead men walking and banks couldn’t be happier. Most of the big banks have killed their broker wholesale operations already. They had been trying to get rid of brokers for years because brokers went from being a easy way to drum up additional loan volume with minimal cost to outright cannibalizing big banks retail operations. Retail banks couldn’t compete on price so they lined the pockets of the politicians to pass legislation targeted only at brokers, but let bank operations get a pass.
Mortgage brokers didn’t underwrite a single loan, they only gave the banks what they asked for. The mortgage banks (citi, wells, bofa, countrywide, etc) create the guidelines and then would send out an army of Account Executives with fake boobs to broker’s offices to get them to send loans to said banks.
If a bank comes in the office and says they will underwrite 100% financing for 580 FICO score borrowers and pay 2-3 points per deal, the broker is going to find those clients. When the loans went bad, the banks then tried to act like they didn’t really want those deals when they were the ones actually approving/underwriting the loans.
The only “brokers” left are actually direct lenders that are known as correspondents. We underwrite and fund the loans with our own capital and then sell them off to the bigger banks post closing. If we don’t underwrite to their standards, we get stuck with the loan.
Russ:
v. informative. thx.
‘course, there were some lenders (all?) that weren’t very concerned with the authenticity of anything, which opened the door for the *real* fraudsters, rather than just the unscrupulous brokers making loans to people who actually satisfied the requirements, but couldn’t really afford a house.
What do you guys think of this comment?
“Conventional wisdom suggests that the economy cannot recover (at least strongly) without a pick-up in bank lending. However, this theory leaves us wanting. After declining in the past two years, total loans and leases held by commercial banks stood at $6.76 trillion at the end of 2009, which was above year-end 2007 levels or any time before that. In other words, bank lending is currently at levels above those that existed during what most people call a “bubble” in bank lending.”
“The only “brokers” left are actually direct lenders that are known as correspondents. We underwrite and fund the loans with our own capital and then sell them off to the bigger banks post closing. If we don’t underwrite to their standards, we get stuck with the loan.”
Of which Perl is one. I am guessing Perl holds paper from time to time too. Not everything is sold right?
Any knowledge on the own to rent ratio? or the health of the hoa? or about the possibility of serious construction flaws?
“After declining in the past two years, total loans and leases held by commercial banks stood at $6.76 trillion at the end of 2009, which was above year-end 2007 levels or any time before that.”
Past two years, as of 12/31/09 = period b/t 12/31/07 and 12/31/09.
Year-end 2007 = 12/31/07.
Unclear how the amount declined over the period, but is higher than the beginning of the period. Unless they mean that it was lower at end-07 than end-06 and end-08 than end-07.
Also, one v.important change occurred in that period–GS and MS became “commercial banks” and commercial banks acquired loans from numerous entities that were not commercial banks previously. So, w/o inquiry, I suspect that they are not comparing apples to apples.
“Any knowledge on the own to rent ratio?”
There are 3 2brs on Craigslist for 1600, 1650 and 2000. All with parking additional (apparently $200). The 2000 one is updated/reno’d.
Assessment+taxes is ~$800, so you have ~1000-1050 for debt service (incl. parking). That’s just over 5% cap (ie just under 200:1). To me, it could make sense at ~$180k, maybe $200k, if you *really* intend to live there for a decade. Subject, of course, to your “health of assn” and structural questions.
I took a look at a couple of place in this building. Sabrina’s guess is correct, there are no windows in the two bedrooms and they are both soft i.e. the bedroom wall doesn’t go up to the ceiling. That in itself is a turnoff. Not to mention the L tracks right next to it. I think there are plenty of other units for sale in this building with better finishes.
Actually, 208 W Washington is right next to El tracks so this has some buffer. And the 14th floor shouldn’t be that bad.
Not bad. Pretty nice looking place.