East Lincoln Park Bank Owned 2-Bedroom 43% Under 2006 Purchase Price: 435 W. Roslyn
This bank owned 2-bedroom unit in a greystone at 435 W. Roslyn in East Lincoln Park has been on the market for nearly 2 months.
It was recently reduced.
The listing has no interior pictures and doesn’t say much about the unit so we have no idea its condition.
It appears to be a duplex down and have a full-sized dining room. There is no mention of parking or in-unit washer/dryer.
It does appear to have central air, however.
The bank first took possession of this unit in July 2008 and waited 19 months to put it on the market.
It is currently listed for 43% under its 2006 purchase price but is also below the 2002 purchase price.
Could this be a steal given its location?
If anyone has been in it, please update us.
James Poulos at REO Plus LLC has the listing. See the listing and exterior picture here.
Unit #1W: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, dining room
- Sold in October 1991 for $213,500
- Sold in February 1994 for $218,000
- Sold in July 1998 for $272,500
- Sold in May 2000 for $337,000
- Sold in October 2002 for $470,000
- Sold in August 2006 for $680,000
- Lis pendens in October 2007
- Bank owned as of July 2008
- Originally listed in February 2010 for $419,900
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $389,000
- Assessments of $244 a month
- Taxes of $4500
- Bedroom #1: 10×10
- Bedroom #2: 10×10
- Living room: 21×19 (listing says lower level?)
- Dining room: 17×13 (lower level?)
- Kitchen: 10×10 (lower level?)
that 2006 price looks all bubblicious (strawberry flavor)
Tried to look at the CCRD site and couldn’t really follow the history. There was a mortgage out there some time back for over 800K. Maybe included the rehab costs? Given past sales this might be a deal. But without pictures and knowing the state of the unit this is a tough call. Plus this area is often inflated due to great location and nice street.
Agree with Onlooker – very tough to form an opinion with the lack of info on the actual unit. Past sales aren’t as good of an indicator these days.
bedroom sizes are awfully small…
Awesome location, great street. Too bad there’s not more information in the pictures. Might have to try and check it out this weekend.
“that 2006 price looks all bubblicious (strawberry flavor)”
Looks like original-flavor fraud to me (without doing *any* digging, so I could be way off base–my apologies if one of the owners lost a job, was seriously injured or died).
“Looks like original-flavor fraud to me”
given what Onlooker said about the CCRD and the 800k loan its fishy. but could it be a PIN error?
i love the streets around here and the location is pretty prime. I hope someone who has viewed it can jump in with more info.
Taxes seem very low for a $680k purchase price.
I looked at this property and the layout is terrible. Kitchen was updated with new cabinets, granite, ect. but it is on the lower level (duplex down) which is just odd to me. Weird cut up bedrooms on the main level and a horrible spiral staircase leading to the downstairs. It has a lot of potential given the location and the building has a great vintage appeal. It would have to be completely reconfigured though.
Wow, from the sounds of it, its probably a positive that this listing doesn’t have any pictures. Isn’t a spiral staircase to a basement some sort of fire code violation or something? And 10×10 for both bedrooms? Tough to fit a queen size bed and a dresser in there with room to walk.
Probably no AC or parking with that price either so this place at 389k sounds like a pretty huge rip off, but the location is nice at least so it has that going for it.
“given what Onlooker said about the CCRD and the 800k loan its fishy. but could it be a PIN error?”
Redfin has the pin wrong–the last four should be 1001. I don’t see a $800k loan, but the prior owner did use 80/20 100% financing. And bought it from an LLC that bought it from the ’00 buyer (and seems to trade in distressed assets), which used a 100%+ mortgage to buy it ($471k and change); the LLC refi’d it for $531k in ’05).
The ’06 buyer doesn’t exist on the web except in reference to this property. The ’00 buyer’s (apparent) parents and sister exist on the web, but he doesn’t seem to exist apart from this property.
So, seems to have all the signs of typical Chicago RE transaction fraud.