All Forum Posts by: Jason Chen

The models with longer warranty come with better anode rod and more rust resistant tank interior coating, as well as better insulation.  I bought a 12-year warranty GE hot water heater from Home Depot nearly 20 years ago. By the time I replaced the anode rod two years ago, it still had plenty of life left. Assuming GE is still building water heaters with the same quality 2 decades ago, it seems to me that if you plan to keep the house for many years, it is worth it to get the longest warranty model.  They should have a real service life far exceeding the warranty life. 

I am not sure if there is a boundary for rental accuracy. Rental rates tend to fluctuate based on month of the year too. I found that for the same rent, the rental go must faster in the summer season than winter even for regular residential rentals. So if you got stuck with an empty rental in the middle of December, you may have to lower the rent as much as by 10% if you don't want to wait till next spring. Given that Zillows does not adjust rental estimate seasonally, it is hard to be accurate all the time. It is a decent base for you to make adjustments based on information from other sources such as Craigslist.

With all the bad mouthing of Zillows Zestimate, I'd say that it is generally pretty good except in a fast moving market. During the real estate bust in the late 2000's, the Zestimate was typically too high. But in the boom market in the 2010's, the Zestimate was typically too low.  Realtors tend to make similar mistakes too. But realtors have more updated information in terms of market inventory level and market trend.  Realtors can also assess the conditions of specific properties rather than paint all houses in the same market with a wide stroke.  If a realtor is truly unbiased for his own benefits, he should be able to assess the property more accurately than Zestimate. But Zestimate is still a valuable tool as a reference, caveat emptor.  

Here is an update: I replied back to the listing agent requesting to see the option contract. The listing agent replied that they accepted another offer. So it seems that some one else was willing to play the game. I am moving on without regret, but somewhat disgusted. Thanks all that replied. It was very helpful.

I think that the bottom-line question is, "Is the option legally binding on the property, and therefore causing a title defect?"

Forget about short sale. Is it theoretically possible that a property owner sells an option on the property first and then sells the ownership to another person unaware of the existing option? In this case, does the option buyer have a legitimate claim on the property?

My first reaction was also to withdraw the offer. But since I have already wasted my time in writing up the offer, I want to get to the bottom of this. I am requesting the seller to show me the option contract. I am also curious if the listing agent is also deeply involved.

I recently made a full offer on a short sale. After the contract was submitted, my agent told me that he was informed by the listing agent that the owner recently sold an "option to buy" on this property to another investor for $9700 in premium. And this investor would not release the option unless the full premium is refunded. The seller wants the buyer (me) to pay up this investor. This sounds very shady to me because it appears to be a plot to siphon money between the bank and the buyer. Can this be legal? I am sure that the bank does not know the existence of this option. How can I verify if the option is legitimate and exercisable? It is not recorded with the county that I could find. TIA.

Kinda late to help the OP now. But I'd like to possibly clarify some issue.
If you find out that you purchased a second lien with a substantial first lien, and you have not paid in full yet (this is possible with some jurisdictions but not all), you can refuse to pay the rest. In most case, you will actually get a refund for the money you paid and the public trustee would simply sell it back to the lender.
If you have paid in full, I do not think that if there a way to get you money back unless there was a flaw in the process or records. You may have to file a law suit.
As a highest bidder of the trustee sale, you are not automatically the owner of the property in most jurisdictions. You may request for the deed, but you don't have to. You do not automatically become liable for the first lien, until you sell the property. But most likely the first lien holder is foreclosing on the mortgage that previous owner signed.
Your only option is to wait and see if the first lien lender's bid is substantially lower than the market value. If you are lucky, the first lien was sold at a prices substantially below the market value and you have the cash, you have the priority to buy it out from the winning bidder of the first lien. I do not believe that you can recover from all the loss, but you may reduce it. You just have to do the math carefully.

But then, if the bank buys the lien back at its full face value, you would just have take to the loss and move on.

Thanks, man. It would make sense. I can not search by grantor or grantee online. This is the most likely scenario.

I am interested in this house (although somewhat scared by its cursed past) but I don't have a good idea about the cost to restore it. It will be a major job. Can I write in the contract a limit of total costs or I can walk away from it?

I saw a FSBO for a house in a really expensive neighborhood. The price is half of the market price but it has a major foundation problem. As a matter of fact, the house has been deserted for at least 4 years.
So I looked into the history of the sale records. The following is what I found.

Seq# Sale Date Sale Price Sale Type
1 06/01/1979 (obsolete sales codes)
2 08/23/1991 $0
3 12/11/1995 $315,000 Good sale; verified
4 08/20/1996 $537,000 Good sale; verified
5 09/26/2002 $0
6 10/28/2002 $0
7 12/15/2003 $280,000 REO Sale-Gvmt/Financial Inst
8 09/13/2005 $0
9 09/15/2005 $0 Foreclosure
10 11/10/2005 $0
11 11/01/2006 $0 Good sale; verified
12 11/14/2006 $0
13 01/29/2007 $1,047,000 REO Sale-Gvmt/Financial Inst

It seems that this unfortunate properties has been foreclosed twice. The transaction that puzzles me is the last one (#13). What could be the circumstances that this house could sell more than $1M while the house was totally deserted with major structural issues? Yes, I checked out the house myself it is indeed in very bad shape. The current owner is asking for $300K, which is OK given the neighborhood is going for $500K. But I am worried about the mysterious $1M last sale price. What could have happened?

Please shed some light on this. Thanks.