37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=64.025309,107.666016&oq=105+midcrest&t=w&hnear=105+Midcrest+Way,+San+Francisco,+California+94114&z=17">105 Midcrest Way in Midtown Terrace was on the market for $799,000 last fall. It received multiple offers (I know this because I represented buyers that were outbid) and closed for $808,000 on September 2, 2011.
While I don’t remember the exact details, there were reports on the property that showed some dry rot and water issues – nothing off the charts, but if I recall it had to do with the east wall (the one you can see in the picture) as well as some of the patios that were over living space (also seen in the picture).
The property didn’t show badly, but it was vacant and didn’t show extremely well, either.
105 Midcrest went back on the market this spring, and closed on 3/22/2012 for $1,020,000 which was over the asking price of $999,000.
As far as I can tell, no work was done to the property with permits between last September and the most recent sale (I checked the online permit and complaint database with DBI). Looking at the pictures from the fall and spring sales, there doesn’t appear to have been any work done on the kitchens or bathrooms, and the carpet and flooring appears to be unchanged as well. It does look like some tidying was done to the yard areas, but that is the only difference I can see.
Did the September buyers get an amazing under-market deal last fall? Given the interest in the property (offer date, multiple offers) it seems hard to say they got a bargain. But given that – as far as I can tell – very little has changed with the property and it sold for $212,000 more after just seven months, what exactly is the lesson learned here? Has the market changed that much or did someone just pay way, way, way too much for a Midtown Terrace home?
What are your thoughts?