“DO NOT DISTURB TENANTS”…what’s up with this listing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to sell a house that you don’t own, this seems like a pretty good script for how to do it.

Probably a dumb question, but I would assume that a buyer would use a title company during the transaction to make sure everything is fine (clean title and etc) and as part of that, would it not be discovered if the seller is not who they say they are?

Granted, it does seem super odd that they are telling prospective buyers not to disturb, but I am guessing people currently living there are violent or unstable (if I had to take a wild guess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell.

+1

How do you not know the room count?

Tenant knocked down or put up walls. Or the owner died/got dementia and nobody else has been in the house but the uncooperative tenant.

Googled the owners and they’re in their 40s so I doubt it’s dementia. Why would anyone give an uncooperative tenant a two year lease? The owners must have felt they were decent tenants or rented through a management company and unaware of the current condition of the house.

[Anonymous]

Squatters??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell.

+1

How do you not know the room count?

Tenant knocked down or put up walls. Or the owner died/got dementia and nobody else has been in the house but the uncooperative tenant.

Googled the owners and they’re in their 40s so I doubt it’s dementia. Why would anyone give an uncooperative tenant a two year lease? The owners must have felt they were decent tenants or rented through a management company and unaware of the current condition of the house.

I actually think it might be the owners living there, not tenants. In SDAT the owners’ mailing address is the same as the property address. The usual giveaway for a rental is the owners will have a different mailing address listed on the tax records than the property address.

I looked the owners up in case search. Looks like this is a foreclosure as previous PPs suspected. Also looks like they had a brush with foreclosure in 2014? Not sure if I’m interpreting that correctly though.

I guess the bank wants their money now, but was willing to let the owners (now tenants) stay until 2025? Is this typical?

[Anonymous]

Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they’ll do an Arlington and clear the lot? Too soon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

It would and it does. There’s a transaction type field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

It would and it does. There’s a transaction type field.

I didn’t see anything about foreclosure in this listing, anywhere. I looked at all the details that were publicly available on Redfin. Genuinely curious (no snark), where do you see information about this being a foreclosure in the listing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

It would and it does. There’s a transaction type field.

I didn’t see anything about foreclosure in this listing, anywhere. I looked at all the details that were publicly available on Redfin. Genuinely curious (no snark), where do you see information about this being a foreclosure in the listing?

I think PP was referring to the case search results that show it’s a foreclosure. A notice was sent to the occupants in 2022. I don’t understand how/why they’re permitted to stay until May 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

It would and it does. There’s a transaction type field.

I didn’t see anything about foreclosure in this listing, anywhere. I looked at all the details that were publicly available on Redfin. Genuinely curious (no snark), where do you see information about this being a foreclosure in the listing?

I thought that if the foreclosure had been completed, completely through the banks/courts 100% and the occupants were out, only then would it show as an official foreclosure in Redfin or Zillow etc. If it’s just a pending foreclosure it wouldn’t show to the public yet. I imagine the courts are still fairly backed up after the COVID moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures so it could take awhile, if indeed it’s a foreclosure situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Squatters??

Halfway house?

[Anonymous]

The Redfin link offers to schedule a tour. I presume that's to stand on the sidewalk across the street and get the same views that are in the pics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

It would and it does. There’s a transaction type field.

I didn’t see anything about foreclosure in this listing, anywhere. I looked at all the details that were publicly available on Redfin. Genuinely curious (no snark), where do you see information about this being a foreclosure in the listing?

Not sure wtf is wrong with Redfin but it’s very clearly delineated on Zillow.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1617-Farragut-Ave-Rockville-MD-20851/37106087_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the listing mention it if this was a foreclosure?

It would and it does. There’s a transaction type field.

I didn’t see anything about foreclosure in this listing, anywhere. I looked at all the details that were publicly available on Redfin. Genuinely curious (no snark), where do you see information about this being a foreclosure in the listing?

Not sure wtf is wrong with Redfin but it’s very clearly delineated on Zillow.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1617-Farragut-Ave-Rockville-MD-20851/37106087_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare

🚩 Thank you to the PP (and Zillow!) for confirming that IT INFACT IS a foreclosure!

"A technology fee will apply to the buyer’s broker upon consummation of a sale OF $175."

Anyone know what a "technology fee" is??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell.

+1

How do you not know the room count?

Tenant knocked down or put up walls. Or the owner died/got dementia and nobody else has been in the house but the uncooperative tenant.

Googled the owners and they’re in their 40s so I doubt it’s dementia. Why would anyone give an uncooperative tenant a two year lease? The owners must have felt they were decent tenants or rented through a management company and unaware of the current condition of the house.

I actually think it might be the owners living there, not tenants. In SDAT the owners’ mailing address is the same as the property address. The usual giveaway for a rental is the owners will have a different mailing address listed on the tax records than the property address.

I looked the owners up in case search. Looks like this is a foreclosure as previous PPs suspected. Also looks like they had a brush with foreclosure in 2014? Not sure if I’m interpreting that correctly though.

I guess the bank wants their money now, but was willing to let the owners (now tenants) stay until 2025? Is this typical?

Maybe the owners-now-tenants are elderly or in home hospice and the bank was unusually compassionate?