Identical situations ---- well, almost.

Two property owners have identical home floor plans, different elevations, different upgrades. Both paid nearly $1M for their respective homes when they bought them brand new from the developer 3 years ago.

The developer had sold for $680K or 30% less, its last property that the same floor plan just last year. Other homes in the community have also fallen in market value because they were adversely affected by recent sales of short sales and foreclosures.

Both these property owners need/want to sell now. Both don't want to do a short sale because they want to protect their credit.

  • Seller A is a young couple. This is their first home. They may need to relocate, and have to sell. They are aware of the market  change, what their home is worth today. So they decided to take the hit and accepted offer for approximately $750K  (before selling expenses). So they are losing what they put into the house, and then have to shell out additional funds for expenses.

 

  • Seller B is an investor with other properties. This is one of their homes. But they vacated the home, moved to another. Their initial list price a year ago was for nearly what they paid for it. Over the course of the next few months, they have re-listed and reduced the price trying to catch up to similar and larger homes taht sold for less in the same neighborhood. Their current list is higher that Seller A's even though Seller B's property has fewer and less expensive upgrades.

Seller B finally receives an offer, but refuses to accept anything less than list price. And so it sits....and sits....and sits.

In the meantime, they make monthly payments of nearly $6k.

Their insurance company may question their rate because the home is vacated, and as such, unprotected.

There is no correct answer to the question on whether or not it would have been better for them to do a short sale, take a hit on their credit score,. Either way, they would have lost 20% of market value.

But what is their next objective?

By doing a short sale, they would lose what they put into the house. And they will see a significant drop in their credit score which they can repair in 2 years or less and enable them to buy another property after that time. Neither homeowner may qualify to buy another property during this time or "repair".

By not doing a short sale, they not only lost market value, but also more $$ out of their pocket. BUT, if they have liquid assets and can qualify to buy another home without waiting for 2 years This may also present them with the opportunity as move-up buyers.

 
This post has been included in California Real Estate News Alameda County, CA Real Estate News
Post is included in group: Short Sale REALTORS®
Post is included in group: Short Sale Specialists & Pre-Foreclosure Education
Post is included in group: Short Sales Specialists
Post is included in group: Short Sale Support Group
Post is included in group: "Whacked"!!!

6 Comments on A tale of two property owners: when short sale is not an option

JAN
14
2010
242,976 Points 16 Featured Posts Attended Rain Camp Called Shot Master

Where is the "hardship?"  I don't mean to sound abrasive, but my house is worth much less than what I paid for it - I don't like the fact that I'm paying a mortgage that the lenders don't want to refinance - if I sold it today, I would take a huge loss.  So would many people in America that aren't protected by the Recovery Act.

I feel very bad for both these situations.  "It's not fair."  But that's why people like this should look at the home as a bad investment and just walk away.  Do a "strategic decision" and just walk away.  Give the bank the keys and take the loss.  Or swallow hard and pay the bank the difference between sales proceeds and the balance of the note.

Uggh!!!!!

4:44pm • #1
619,719 Points 61 Featured Posts Localism Sponsor Outside Blog Hit Router Attended Rain Camp Called Shot Master

Neither wants to do a strategic default by walkiing away, so they're trying to "swallow hard" and not only pay the bank the difference but also come up with the money for their selling expenses.

If they do a short sale, they can qualify on several points

1. Decrease in market value

2. Increaase expenses (as result of higher mortgage payment when they re-set)

3. Loss of income -- one seller was unemployed for a year, but he and his wife met their financial obligations

These folks are trying to be financially responsible by not walking away -- as such, they are morally, ethically in the right....but financially? People will have different points of view in that respect.

5:02pm • #2
1,272,997 Points 2 Featured Posts Outside Blog Hit Router

Pacita

Great post;sitting on those monthly payments can be a nightmare hoping they can continue to do so.

5:15pm • #3
1,424,038 Points 56 Featured Posts Outside Blog Called Shot Master

Sounds like the investor needs to dump a cheaper property at a lesser loss and then wait out the storm.  Not knowing all the information makes it tough!

7:46pm • #4
JAN
15
2010
1,085,377 Points 75 Featured Posts Outside Blog Called Shot Master

I agre with Bill on this one from what we know...hang on for the "market to come back".....and weigh that against the expense....grrrr...not !

7:11am • #5
339,755 Points 9 Featured Posts Called Shot Master

Credit loss will probably be less than 50 points... They need to cut their losses.  Is your market still moving downward?  I think there's more to lose before they gain anything... Wish you luck!

8:09pm • #6

Login or register to leave a comment

 
Pacita Dimacali - ePRO, SRES, CDPE, MBA Alain Pinel in Alameda County CA (Alain Pinel) Rainmaker_large

Pacita Dimacali - ePRO, SRES, CDPE, MBA Alain Pinel in Alameda County CA

Oakland, CA

More about me…

Alain Pinel

Address: 6211 La Salle Ave, Oakland, CA, 94611

Cell Phone: (510) 205-2992

Email Me



Listings

Links

Archives

RSS 2.0 Feed for this blog

Find CA real estate agents and Oakland real estate on ActiveRain.