bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
Of course, anyone should be aware of their surroundings. Jerseymom has been making negative comments about the heights for years. You'll always see her posting crimes up here but never in her neighborhood and giving people advice on the area when she no longer lives up here.

Some people just have issues.



Quote:

esp123 wrote:
Appreciate the info, JerseyMom.

I didn't take it as though you were cautioning against bogeymen, rather responding directly to my question as to whether to the stop was isolated at night.

Especially as a woman, nothing out of the ordinary with doing research as to whether or not a stop is isolated or not late at night...that's something I'd wanna know about wherever a stop was, whether in Heights, downtown JC, upper Eastside...

This is a little over the top. JerseyMom has always been one of the most courteous and helpful people around here. Her posts are usually very helpful or very much on point. A difference of opinion does not make one a person with issues.

esp123 wrote:
Appreciate the info, JerseyMom.

I didn't take it as though you were cautioning against bogeymen, rather responding directly to my question as to whether to the stop was isolated at night.

Especially as a woman, nothing out of the ordinary with doing research as to whether or not a stop is isolated or not late at night...that's something I'd wanna know about wherever a stop was, whether in Heights, downtown JC, upper Eastside...

SRhia wrote:
@bodhipooh - yes, you're right. I'm the same one who posted that thread previously.

The other unit owner is aware that the roof is deeded to us. However, instead of asking us directly, they are going to ask the condo association / owners for a vote on this (we happen to have a condo meeting coming up).

So - I have a feeling this may get messy, so I just want a lawyer's contact handy, in case we need to go down that route.

I have looked through our bylaws and deed, and what I saw so far is that:
1. the roof is defined as a "General Common Element"
2. the right to construct a roof deck is "limited and reserved" to our unit only

However, the bylaw/deed does not explicitly say that other units cannot put anything up there. Our neighbor is taking the route that if they can obtain majority votes, then they can put the compressor up there?

====>>>>> Therefore - I'm not sure if we (as owners of the deeded roof) can conclusively say "No" to the neighbor and their compressor. I would have assumed that since the roof is deeded to us, then we should be able to say No, and that's the final word???

That's why we don't know how to handle this, and therefore may need to get a lawyer involved.

If anyone has any insights or experience into this, we'd greatly appreciate it - feel free to comment here, or direct message me.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Right because 440 and communipaw ave needs more traffic!

The skyway work will be finished and the traffic eased, someday...

karindiann wrote:
I'm part of a 4-unit condo association, and we have a bank account and pay our own bills -- no outside management company needed. Somebody has to volunteer to write the checks and do the bookkeeping (basically a thankless job).

In our association, all of the units have a slightly different square footage and pay a different percentage of common expenses. I think this would probably be true of a 2-unit building as well -- and give one owner more weight in the case of disagreement.

I remember the developer of our building had set up the association before the units were sold, which I assume is a requirement if you are selling condo units.

rscott wrote:
It can go either way - I'm in a 2 unit condo association and it's fine, while those in the other unit had terrible experiences with the association in their previous (large) building. It just depends on who the other owners are!

hero69 wrote:
how is the trader joe's in hoboken doing? is it mad buzy like the ones in manhattan?

CandiceOsborne wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
While I'm glad you were able to get a deal, once you mentioned it wasn't in Hudson County, it really doesn't apply to this thread. There is very little probability that a property in JC would auction for less than 60% of fmv. JC real estate is up 24% over one year ago and to think that a bank is not well aware of these figures, as well as a property owner who knows they can sell or do a bankcruptcy filing before an auction would be naive to say the least.

The entire metro-market I looked at is up 10% over last year, and I bought was in downtown which is much more of a sellers market than the rest of the area. I've lost out in bidding wars on two other properties down there over the last 9 months. But yes, I FULLY expected to be bidding against one of the lien holders and expected to go higher. It makes zero sense that the guy didn't file bankruptcy because he's still on the hook for many of these liens. And if he'd filed for bankruptcy the government would have gotten their money first. It was a very strange case. But my point was those strange cases can and do exist, but you have to do a lot of research.

CandiceOsborne wrote:
I purchased an investment property this way, a county foreclosure auction (though not Hudson County) and here was my experience:

1 - I had to bring 5% of cash in form of cashier's check and have the remaining cash within 20 days (charged daily interest at 6.25% APR). If you go then you should bring 5% of the max bid you are willing to make. I don't see how you could do this without having all cash because an appraiser wouldn't have access to the house and not sure what bank would make a loan in this case.

2 - The judgement amount and the opening bid are NOT related. The judgement amount only dictates how much $ the senior debtor receives before other lienholders are paid. The senior debtor may set the opening bid. In my case, the senior debtor set the opening bid at $130,000 LESS than the judgement amount.

3 - If a judge is worth his/her salt they will make sure all lienholders are included (excluding property tax and utilities.) In my case there were 2 home loans, 5 federal income tax liens and a small business loan with claims to the property (the small business loan was from a restaurant operated elsewhere, but opened by the homeowner.) The court records are all public.

4 - It is difficult to get a lot of information ahead of time (like the inside of the home), but not impossible. I looked at the court record and called the senior debtor's law firm to try to get more information, but they were not willing (or perhaps allowed to) give any information. Then I went to the tax records and got the owners name. I googled his name and couldn't find much of anything, but on page 3 of google found that he'd registered a trademark for a restaurant name in the same city as the house. I then googled the restaurant name and found a facebook page for the restaurant...which ultimately led me to pictures I could tie to the house.

5 - It is possible for the home to not be auctioned even after the judgement, so it is good to have an accurate understanding of the history by looking at real estate sites, tax history and court filings. In my case, I saw that they put the home up for sale in 2014 which failed and then for an online auction last year which fell through. I saw the guy switching to a living trust and then back to himself to try and get around the foreclosure. I also found the owners facebook page and saw that he said he had moved 2 months ago. All of that led me to believe that the auction would ultimately occur for the property. But again, I could see that this nonsense had been going on since 2014.

6 - I did a title search to understand and to compare it to the court records (which matched)

7 - I had a gut feeling that the minimum bid set by the senior debtor would be high enough that flippers and developers would not be interested unless they had done as much sleuthing as I had done (which I doubted.) There were lots of developers and flippers (people sitting on the floor because not enough seats) but they did not make a move on this property.

LONG STORY SHORT: It was a lot of research, but well worth it because I got the home at 50-60% of market value based on comps. That said, I had been watching this market for 9 months. So if you understand the market and have cash and are willing to do a bunch of research on the property, it can pay off.

12345 wrote:
I know very little about these sheriff sales so you should go to the Hudson County Sheriffs Office and verify what I am writing:

1. The auctions that are listed in the paper are withdrawn or post phoned most of the time because many people contact the owners and work out a deal where they give the owner cash to transfer title and negotiate with the mortgage holders for a short sale. This is called PRE-FORECLOSURE and is a great way to get a deal.

2 You will not be able to inspect the property or look inside and there are many angry people who will trash the property when you take their home and try to evict. Another good reason to do pre-foreclosure.

3. Every property is allowed 3 or 4 postphonement and then if it makes it to the auction the mortgage holders will show up and bid what they are owed, this is the starting bid. If there are 2 mortgage holders and only one shows up then the other gets wiped out at the auction.

4. Tax liens take precedent over other liens and will not get wiped out so if there is a IRS lien it stays with the property; you MUST do a title search before you bid to verify this and know what your liabilities are.

5 The sheriff takes CASH at the auction and balance in 30 days in cash making it very hard to get financing and they add a sheriff fee on top.

Owners of the properties are contacted by hundreds of investors before the sale. But great deals exist if you are willing to work hard and go to auctions every week because if the owner is dead you might get a great deal!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Ins't there also other programs like reverse mortgages which would allow someone to cash out their equity and live in the home for the rest of their lives. Not that I would ever recommend a reverse mortgage, but just pointing out it's an option if someone wanted to stay.

Please explain why you would never recommend a reverse mortgage to pay the taxes. I cannot find any legit criticism of using a 'reverse' in this way, only of pulling out large lump sums for stupid reasons. Someone 70 years old with $2m in equity and low income can pay their taxes easily for the rest of their lives, and maybe even have some extra pocket money, rather moving or sitting in their gold plated home feeling poor.

Do the numbers, it would take more than 25 years of zero appreciation to eat half their equity by paying their tax, and no one thinks there will be zero appreciation. Complaining about taxes because they wanted to leave the now valuable house to their heirs is not a reason to feel sorry for anyone.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
What does Yeah...No mean?

It means "yeah, I thought about it; and no, you're wrong."


Quote:

You aren't the seller so you wouldn't know why they are selling unless you know them.

lol

In case you missed it, you ascribed motives to them too --
by proclaiming they were doing it because of the reval.

Anyway. It's been on the market for 5 months, they started out asking $1m more than the city's assessed price, and they switched real estate agents after just 2 months. I'm sure there are people more experienced than I am at divining the psychology of sellers, but that doesn't sound like they are getting out because their property taxes are going up. It sounds much more like they are trying to take advantage of an incredibly tight real estate market in DTCJ, and miscalculated.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
The selling has already begun. 272 Barrow was put on the market in December for 3.3 million, the taxes went from 16K to 41K per year. They just lowered their asking to 3 million. I'm sure many more will follow.

Yeah... no

272 Barrow was first listed in 9/2017 for $3.5 million, which is **WAY** above market, and would probably make it one of the most expensive properties in JC. (The assessor put it at $2.5m.)

The owners pulled it from Twill, and relisted it at $3.3m with Boyne in 11/2017. In December, they reduced it again to $3m. All of that is more than 2 months before the updated rates were published.

This is not an example of people dumping properties because of the reval. It's an example of someone trying to sell a home for more than anyone wants to pay, for at least 5 months.

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
also, does any one have some chart, figures indicating overall overall under/over valuation for different sections of the city?

The city released neighborhood estimates late last year