Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

San Francisco home selling for $488,000 but you can't move in until 2053

A house in San Francisco's trendy Russian Hill neighborhood is on the market for less than half of what it's worth, but the listing is going viral because of a unique condition for potential buyers.

The three-bedroom property, built in 1924, listed earlier this month is worth $1.8 million but is currently priced at $488,000, according to The San Francisco Standard.

But the catch is that the new owners won't be able to move in until 2053.

The 1,100-square-foot house has a driveway, garage, and fenced-in backyard and sits on a 3,262-square-foot lot.

According to the Park North Real Estate listing, the home is tenant-occupied, and the people living there may have occupancy rights for 30 years. The listing also states that the tenants pay $416.67 a month in rent, in addition to utilities. The current lease "appears to grant tenants strong long-term rent rate."

The property will be sold as is, meaning the new owners will become the current tenants' new landlords.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29July 28, 2024 6:50 PM

How idiotic.

As if anyone would fall for that bullshit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1June 26, 2024 2:11 AM

People who sell Real Estate are always looking for the next scam.

So basically, these people are making a loan from whoever decides to "buy" the house. You give them money now, and they spend it.

And there's no guarantee that you won't die within the next thirty years, or that they won't live for another 50 years, in which case you would be stuck with them.

I'm so fucking sick of American scammers. Always looking for new ways to rip people off.

It's really sickening, and this should fucking be ILLEGAL.

by Anonymousreply 2June 26, 2024 2:16 AM

What scam? People buy tenant-occupied property every day of the. week, as an investment. It’s called being a landlord.

If it pencils out for an investor then what the fuck are you bitching about? The stupidity on DL is increasing exponentially.

by Anonymousreply 3June 26, 2024 2:21 AM

R2 Scam? They’re literally telling you the perimeters of the deal. Don’t buy it.

I’m sick of stupid people commenting on subjects they don’t understand

by Anonymousreply 4June 26, 2024 2:28 AM

I've never heard of a decades long lease. It doesn't sound like it would hold up in housing court.

by Anonymousreply 5June 26, 2024 2:28 AM

Suppose the tenants burn the house down?

by Anonymousreply 6June 26, 2024 2:32 AM

[quote] What scam? People buy tenant-occupied property every day of the. week, as an investment. It’s called being a landlord.

How in the fuck are you a "landlord," if you're paying THEM to live there?

That's not an investment. It's a SCAM

It's like saying, I'll sell you my car, but you won't own it for 30 years. And in the meantime, I get to drive it. And I'll pay you 10 bucks a month.

If you can't see that this is a scam, then you're a bigger idiot than you already appear to be.

Why would anyone take that deal? THIRTY FUCKING YEARS until you can move in.

If you're 40 now, you'd have to wait until you're 70 to move in. And you get nothing for it, in the meantime, except about $5000 per year.

After 30 years, that's still only $150,000. Not even close to what you're paying for it.

The only thing you've accomplished, is losing half a million dollars to pay someone else to live in your house.

Get the fuck out of here with your real estate double speak, assholes at R3/R4.

Anyone with $500,000 cash on hand can find a MUCH better investment for their money.

by Anonymousreply 7June 26, 2024 2:36 AM

R5 you sound like someone without a clue about leaseholds, life estates, remainders, or real estate investing in general. Seek help.

by Anonymousreply 8June 26, 2024 2:39 AM

R7 see R8. I can’t help you fix your self-owned stupidity, but some day—if you look up these concepts and get some mental health guidance—you might both learn a thing or two about real estate and how not to come across as a complete ass. Your call.

by Anonymousreply 9June 26, 2024 2:43 AM

R3/R4/R8/R9 you really are a dumb cunt, trying to portray yourself as someone who actually knows what you're talking about.

Either you're the dumb cunt trying to sell that house, or you're the real estate agent.

Just look at these people's faces when they hear the terms of the agreement. They're all fucking shaking their heads in disgust!

Even the attorney (who tried to at least rationalize it) was unable to do so.

Because this agreement is to no one else's advantage, but the person trying to unload this bullshit on to the real estate market.

You know this stinks when the real estate agency won't even respond to any media inquiries.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10June 26, 2024 2:58 AM

According to the Park North Real Estate listing, the home is tenant-occupied, and the people living there may have occupancy rights for 30 years. The listing also states that the tenants pay $416.67 a month in rent, in addition to utilities. The current lease “appears to grant tenants strong long-term rent rate.”

R9 $416.67 a month!

by Anonymousreply 11June 26, 2024 2:59 AM

If it pencils out for an investor then what the fuck are you bitching about? The stupidity on DL is increasing exponentially.

by Anonymousreply 12June 26, 2024 3:03 AM

A potential purchaser might think that with the $1.4 million dollars they saved on the purchase price they could pay the person to move out. It really depends on the situation of the renter like their age and history to the property.

This reminds me of a story about a very successful but not that well known gay guy named Dick Jenrette. He was an early innovator on Wall Street in the 70s and used a lot of his money to buy and restore 14 historic and architecturally interesting houses here and abroad.

He fell in love with classic Greek Revival house on the Battery in Charleston, SC had to have it. He wanted it so badly that he agreed to let the little old widow owner live on the 2nd, main floor of the house for her lifetime. She was terribly old when the agreement was made but she kept hanging on for 12 years when she eventually died at the age of 103!

He wrote a great book about the houses, one was the estate Gore Vidal owned on the Hudson, Edgewater. To give you an idea of the circle Jenrette ran in, then Prince Charles wrote the forward.

by Anonymousreply 13June 26, 2024 3:23 AM

R13 Thank for this. I find it fascinating and will look for that book. I love beautiful properties and the stories that surround them. People can say what they want about DL, but this old queen learns something new all the time here.

by Anonymousreply 14June 26, 2024 4:00 AM

[quote] Scam? They’re literally telling you the perimeters of the deal.

Oh, dear! Did you want to dig a moat around the property? Or build a wall?

by Anonymousreply 15June 26, 2024 4:21 AM

R2/R7/R10: tell us how you feel about rent control.

by Anonymousreply 16June 26, 2024 4:58 AM

I don’t get it. The son owns the house but the mother has a long term rental agreement? Is he just off loading it to try and grab some cash and let the new buyer deal with mom? It makes no sense.

by Anonymousreply 17June 26, 2024 5:17 AM

It's parameters, not perimeters.

by Anonymousreply 18June 26, 2024 5:19 AM

R17, yes, that's what it sounds like. Son wants to liquidate.

by Anonymousreply 19June 26, 2024 5:20 AM

I used to live in Russian Hill, but the lower part, near Nob Hill.

This place far up north, close to Fisherman's Wharf.

by Anonymousreply 20June 26, 2024 5:22 AM

If it is mother and son and she has lifetime rights apparently granted by the father, why would she have to pay rent?

Would less than $500 a month pay the taxes? He might not be able to afford the property tax burden and would rather sell for what he can get instead of having it taken by the county for unpaid tax.

by Anonymousreply 21June 26, 2024 5:24 AM

I’m surprised he doesn’t push her down the hill in a wheelchair. If she’s 83, she won’t be around in 2053. Does the sister also fall under the long term lease? She probably would also fight to stay. The father really messed up the family by making this stupid lease.

by Anonymousreply 22June 26, 2024 5:30 AM

The father should have, IMO, given the mother a life estate (ability to live in house until death). Then the sister and brother inherit (after the mother dies). If one cannot afford to buy the other out, then liquidate and split the cash.

by Anonymousreply 23June 26, 2024 5:34 AM

Perhaps I could help?

by Anonymousreply 24June 26, 2024 6:03 AM

[quote] The father should have, IMO, given the mother a life estate (ability to live in house until death). Then the sister and brother inherit (after the mother dies). If one cannot afford to buy the other out, then liquidate and split the cash.

Which is how every other family in the country does it.

This arrangement benefits no one else but the "seller."

It's just such a dumb fucking idea, I can't even.

But watch it become a real estate trend.

by Anonymousreply 25June 26, 2024 7:48 AM

[quote] As if anyone would fall for that bullshit.

Looks like the family found a sucker!

[bold]A San Francisco home that splashed onto the market for a surprising $488,000 in June has sold for its asking price — but intense drama appears to have unfolded behind the scenes.

“This thing is a family mess,” the seller, Todd Lee told the San Francisco Chronicle.

According to the Chronicle, Todd accepted an offer from his sister, Cheryl Lee, 66, who was originally renting the home with their mother, Sandra Lee, 83.

The property was actually valued at $1.8 million — but the low price came with a key stipulation: the current tenants apparently had occupancy rights for nearly 30 years.

Redfin, shows the property was sold on July 16.

The listing clearly stated the home was already occupied by tenants whose lease appears to grant them “possible occupancy rights until 2053” and “strong long-term rent rate amount restrictions.” The tenants pay $416.67 a month in rent, in addition to utilities.

Sandra’s parents originally purchased the property in the 1970s for $52,000 and lived there until they died. In a previous interview with The San Francisco Standard, Sandra claimed Todd and her brother, Cedric Goo, had taken advantage of her and her daughter and listed the home against her wishes.

Sandra also claimed that her stepfather (the original homeowner), Kenneth Goo, wrote her a lease in secret before he died — granting her long-term rent rate restrictions until 2053.

“If it wasn’t for the lease that [my son] didn’t know about that was made in 2018, I don’t know where we’d be,” she said. “It’s unfathomable, the deception, the betrayal — this is my son doing this to me.”

Todd denied his mother’s allegations and said he agreed to the sale to avoid litigation despite getting higher offers from other buyers, reports the Chronicle.

“I wanted to keep it private,” he said. “When my mother spoke out, it got exponentially worse.”

Todd says Kenneth named him trustee of the family trusts, which include the home, and Cheryl, Sandra and Cedric are the beneficiaries. While Sandra and Cedric are entitled to 37.5% each, Cheryl gets the remaining 25%.

Per the Chronicle, Kenneth first signed a lease on the property in 2019 that ran through March 31, 2049, and required the tenant to pay property taxes and insurance as rent for the term of the contract, allowing “tenant’s immediate and extended family” use of the premises.

Robert Roddick, the family trusts’ lawyer, says he helped write the first lease and the named tenant is Cheryl.

Two years later, Kenneth amended the lease, curbing the tenant’s annual property tax and insurance payment to just $5,000 a year — or $416.67 a month — and extending it until Dec. 31, 2053.

Kenneth’s death in 2022 triggered a reassessment of the home the following year. The value surged from $143,152 to $1,428,000, with the property taxes on the home rising from $1,717 to a staggering $16,928 a year, the Chronicle reports, citing government records. Todd noted that Cheryl paid the most recent property taxes.

Roddick says a broker valued the house at $1.8 million without the tenants in place, but he claims the tenants “won’t cooperate and move [out] to get the maximum price for the home.”

He says if the property sold for $1.8 million, Sandra and Cheryl would be entitled to about $1.1 million for their shares combined, while Cedric would get around $700,000 (excluding any expenses and debts that may be owed to the family trust).

However, if Sandra and Cheryl bought the house for $500,000, Sandra’s and Cheryl’s total shares from the sale would be around $300,000, while Cedric’s portion would come to $200,000. That said, this means the mother and daughter would own a home worth $1.8 million.[/bold]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26July 28, 2024 5:47 PM

I don’t understand this at all. Why doesn’t mom own the house?

by Anonymousreply 27July 28, 2024 5:54 PM

The family circumstances are a little peculiar but sales of property with life estates (and associated rental/expense agreements) are not terribly rare.

In Spain it's known as "nuda propiedad" and is a way for older people to live out the remainder of their lives in their houses or apartments. The terms are within legal frameworks and is not common, but not rare either. Usually the terms of payment are spaced to benefit the seller's tax obligations, with a very low cost relative the value paid in several installments then a monthly payment (a sort of reverse rent) for every year thereafter. The property terms are clearly disclosed as well as the age of the seller -- I've never seen a property sold this way when the seller was less than 70 years of age. With this form of sale there are restrictions, too, on precisely who the tenant/s are and against any substitutions, so that an adult daughter who moved in to care for an an aged patent for several years would not acquire rights to remain there after the parent/s death

by Anonymousreply 28July 28, 2024 6:44 PM

Can anyone break down the gibberish at R26, for us simple minded folk?

I'm trying to make sense of this situation described at R26, but it makes absolutely no sense to me.

by Anonymousreply 29July 28, 2024 6:50 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!