Steve Tyson’s Real Estate Update for 4 neighborhoods.

Neuse Harbour  Active homes for sale by price range Current number of homes on the market=10 Pending sales=2 Active homes for sale by price range $234,000=1 $309,000-$379,000=2 $595,000-$680,000=4 $,799,000-$979,000=3 There were 9 home that sold and closed in Neuse Harbour in the last 12 months. The most expensive house sold was $295,000.	Stately Pines Current homes on the market=6 Pending sales=1 Active homes for sale by price range $140,000-$200,000=5 $635,000=2 There were 5 homes that sold and closed in Stately Pines in the last 12 months. The most expensive house sold was $251,000.
Carolina Pines Current homes on the market=25 Pending sales=2 Active homes for sale by price range $89,000-$150,000=5 $159,000-$200,000=8 $207,000-$258,000=12 There were 17 homes that sold and closed in Carolina Pines in the last 12 months. The highest priced home sold was $279,000.	Tucker Creek Current homes on the market=10 Pending sales=3 Active homes for sale by price range $100,000-$200,000=7 $220,000-$260,000=6 There were 8 homes that sold and closed in Tucker Creek in the last 12 months. The highest priced home sold was $224,000.

Total homes sold January 1-July-29  2010=755

Total homes sold January 1- July-29  . 2011=745

Total homes sold January 1- July-29  2012=743

Total homes sold January 1- July-29  2013=838-

Note, of the 838 homes sold 188 of them were Bank Owned.

There are currently 1538 homes listed for sale in our multiple listing service. We are selling homes at a rate of about 122 a month. A buyers market is defined as more than 6 months of home inventory. It is definitely a buyer’s market as we currently have about 12 months worth of inventory. With that said each neighborhood and price range is unique

Feel free to call or email me if you would like to have a customized absorption rate or a Comparable Market Analysis for your property. Home sales in each neighborhood can vary greatly.

SteveTyson55@gmail.com  

 www.NewBern-NC.Info

                                       

Home Sales for the past week in the New Bern-Craven County Market

There are currently 1097 homes for sale in Craven County.

In the past week, 19 homes closed in Craven County. 

$39,000-$100,000=4 sales.     In this price range there are 158 homes for sale!

$100,001-$150,000=6 sales.   In this price range there are 231 homes for sale!

$150,001-$200,000=6 sales.     In this price range there are 266 homes for sale!

$200,001-$255,000=2 sales.   In this price range there are 164 homes for sale!

$286,000=1                            Over $286,000 there are 225 homes for sale!

None of the sales in the past week were waterfront homes.

3 of the 19 sales this week were Bank Owned properties.

There were 0 waterfront lots sold in the past week. There was 1 interior lot sold.

There were 0 commercial lots sold in the past week.

Here is how the sales this week compare to sales for the same week in prior years.

2012=25 sales

2011=15 sales

2010=19 sales

2009=15 sales

It remains a buyers market in New Bern but prices seem to be Stabilizing. I believe it is a good time to buy a home as it is a buyers market. If you have any questions about the New Bern Real Estate Market send me an email. Have a great week.

Alert! California Changes Law re Shortsales and Foreclosures

On July 11, 2013 Governor Brown signed into law SB 426 which expands the anti-deficiency language in Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) sections 580b and 580d.

Presently, California has several anti-deficiency statutes that protect folks from a "deficiency judgment" when their home is sold for less than is owed on their loan, i.e., short sale. Another law stops a deficiency judgment for loans that were used to pay the purchase price of the borrower's home.  (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 580b)  Without these laws, a lender who agrees to sell the property for less than the balance of the loan could sue for the deficiency.  For example, a homeowner owes $100,000 on a loan, and the house is sold for $90,000, the lender could sue for $10,000.  Of course, they would also sue for interest, penalties, attorney fees, etc. etc. Thus, California's anti-deficiency laws are important to homeowners suffering from a the drop in value to their homes. 

The problem with the old law was that debt collectors preyed on former homeowners.

Debt collectors would contact and harass borrowers after foreclosure in order to attempt to collect the debt.  They would assert that the anti-deficiency statutes leave the debt due and owing even if it cannot be pursued through the courts.  Unfortunately, many former homeowners would believe the collections agent, and they would make payments even though debts cannot be legally enforced. In addition, many creditors and debt collectors would also report debts as delinquent on the former home owner's credit reports, making it more difficult for borrowers to rebuild their credit after foreclosure.

I believe this amendment to the anti deficiency statutes is well suited.  The reason for theses laws is to limit the former home owner's loss to just the property.  By prohibiting the attempts of debt collectors from collecting on the debt only makes sense.

Ken Jorgensen, California Attorney
www.fresnolawgroup.com
 
Photo:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/37486024@N03/

New Bern Home Sales

Home Sales for the past week in the New Bern-Craven County Market

In the past week, 12 homes closed in Craven County. Of the 12 sales 3 (25%) were bank owned.
$35,000-$100,000=5 sales
$100,001-$150,000=2 sales
$150,001-$200,000=1 sale
$200,001-$250,000=4 sales
The only waterfront home that sold was in Riverbend. It was on the market for 1029 days and sold for $212,000. The tax value on this property was $292,030.

Here is how the 12 sales this week compare to sales for the same week in prior years.
2012=14 sales
2011=30 sales
2010=17 sales
2009=16 sales
There were 0 waterfront lots sold in the past week.
There were 0 commercial lots sold in the past week.

It remains a Buyer's Market in the New Bern area, however each property is unique and sales do occur every day. Great time to buy a home. Give me a call and we will find you a deal.

Hot Off the Press: Local Short Sale Case Published

The 5th District Court Of Appeals in Fresno California published a case on July 18, 2013 regarding the short sale anti deficiency judgments.  (Bank of America N.A. v. Roberts)

In the case, Ms. Roberts owned a home in Three Rivers.  She took out a 2nd mortgage.  Unfortunately, she could not keep up with the payments on the first and second mortgage.  As a result, she agreed to short sell the property in approximately 2010.  As a part of the terms of the short sale, she agreed to keep making payments on the second mortgage until it was paid off in full even though she no longer owned the property.  

As a brief aside, this type of transaction was common prior to July of 2011 -- The second mortgage would essentially hold a property sale ransom.  The second mortgage lender would either make the borrower contribute additional money before closing, or make the borrower agree to remain liable, like Ms. Roberts.  If they did not agree, they would not consent to the short sale, and the property would eventually be foreclosed upon. 

In July 2011, the law changed.  California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 580e, was amended to expand the anti deficiency protection in the event of a short sale to any deed of trust, including second deeds of trusts.  This stopped second mortgage lenders from extortion.  The amendment was enacted as urgent legislation, taking effect immediately.  This relief was necessary because the protection lessened the impact of the foreclosure crisis and it would serve to encourage the approval of short sales as an alternative to foreclosure.  

Back to Ms. Robert's case.  Ms. Roberts she argued that the law change should apply to her, even though she made the deal with the lender before the law had changed.  The Court disagreed.  They held the law was not written to be applied retroactively.  Therefore, Ms. Roberts was responsible for the contract she made with her second mortgage lender.    

Thus, it appears  that in this district the mortgage foreclosure relief act does not apply retroactively.    

Ken Jorgensen, California Attorney
www.fresnolawgroup.com

Photo credit:    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/  

New Bern Home Sales in July

Home sales are up this month so far. Look how we compare to prior years.

Home Sales July 1-July 17, 2013=72
Home Sales July 1-July 17, 2012=49
Home Sales July 1-July 17, 2011=11
Home Sales July 1-July 17, 2010=57
Home Sales July 1-July 17, 2009=51

Looks like we are tracking in the right direction this month. Lets hope it continues.

Can a Co-Owner Force me To Sell a Property the I Want to Keep?

Here is a hypothetical scenario: Your brothers have decided they want to sell the coastal house in Cambria, California.  All three of you owned the cottage for 28 years.  Your parents bought the property for $50,000 in 1948 and it is now worth 2.5 million.  You have lived in the house for the last ten years since your siblings moved to Arizona.  You have not missed a single mortgage payment.  They want to sell the property take their proceeds and move on.  You do not want to sell because you cannot afford a similar replacement property in Cambria.  Can they force you to move out so as to sell the property? 

The good news is that your brothers will not be able to evict you because you are not a tenant.  You are an owner of the house.  The bad news is they can sue you for Partition.  Essentially, California law holds that co-owners of a property you do not have to be a forced owner of co-owned property.  You can sue and obtain a court order forcing the sale of the property.  The proceeds of the sale will be split according to the percentage of ownership, or in an equitable manner.  California Code of Civil Procedure section 872.140.

I have never seen a Partition cause of action go to trial.  The reason is that the costs associated with a partition judgment are high.  You have to pay attorneys to represent both opposing sides along with other court appointed real estate professionals and the court is going to sell the property regardless.  As such, once the opposing side realizes that the property is going to get sold, it make economical sense to consent to a traditional sale of the property.    

Ken Jorgensen, California Attorney
www.fresnolawgroup.com

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkeats/with/3124213601/