First of all, the construction quality is top notch and the finishes are all high end. Their IS parking, and the reason parking in the building was sold separately was to give us owners a real value of (1) our unit and (2) parking. Most developers bundle it together so that you really do not know your value. While I believe everyone bought parking, it was not required.

As for the lawsuit, their is one against the property from the General Contractor, which was caused by the bank that financed The Summit being closed by the government at the tail end of construction. If you read the articles, and really know what is going on, you would know that the developer and the GC are in contact with each other and trying to work it out.

There is a train next to The Summit, but within the next month the train horn will be quieted as part of a “Quiet Zone,” which Mr. Wallach has been working on for the last 4 years.

As you said, the internet can be a wonderful place, but first hand knowledge is even better. You would do yourself a favor and tour The Summit if you ever come to Phoenix…you will find it to be one of the best condominiums you have ever been to.

“I would avoid the Summit at Copper Square. Poor build quality, bad management, non-responsive developer, and you’re right next to the train tracks with train horns blaring at all hours. Bad deal all around; and I hear that there are still lawsuits pending against the developer.”

http://www.city-data.com/forum/phoenix-area/296648-working-downtown-phoenix-curious-about-moving-10.html

So I did some more checking and read about how people bought a condo and the parking wasn’t included. I bet he sure is renting them out at good prices, since you’ve got to pony up another 30K for a parking spot.

This is what buyers on the internet do. Research. Sometimes it just leads to a lot of junk. Sometimes, it leads you to newpaper stories about how developers give you brochures that say, “valet parking” and 3 years later say, “Gimme 30K.”

How do you sell a condo downtown in Phoenix without parking?
Answer? You don’t. Better get another 30K mortgage if you want to sell. Seems they were going for ~305K a little while back. Some are for sale for 240K now.

Boy, sure makes me want to check that place out and move right in.

The AZ Rep reported today about problems at Summit at Copper Square. I’m not privy to the financial matters at Summit but I will say this; the owner David Wallach is very hands-on and working hard to see the high rise condo building through these tough times. He is currently renting out condos at very very competitive prices (contact us for details or to see the condos). The added cash flow from the rentals will hopefully keep things afloat. It’s amazing what a difference just a few months made during the boom/bust cycle. Summit delivered condos starting roughly December 2007 and closed approximately half the units. If construction had finished six months earlier I think that most of the condos would have closed. But then again, if construction had been completed six months later I bet only 10% of the condo buyers would have closed.

James said he was told by an escrow agent “that after 3 1/2 months of hard work, a short-sale fell apart because the lien holder reduced the agent commission to 4%. The agents tanked the deal.”

OK, there’s a few layers of hearsay in there, but if a real estate agent insists on taking 0% instead of 4% for “3 1/2 months hard work” he (or she) deserves every nickel.

Your last paragraph is perhaps the most important one “many of these issues could have been foreseen, but the right questions are not being raised prior to the property being listed in the mls in the first place.” At least the folks going through the CDPE training have been thoroughly drilled on this stuff, and should be able to decide whether they can take a viable listing from their seller clients, and should be able to advise their buyer clients whether a purchase transaction has a reasonable chance of succeeding.

In most cases there is no lender consult or approval to sell the property before it goes in the mls, consequently it is not listed in good faith. “Seller does not have “the authority to sell” should not be in mls.

For some mls services I would agree with you. Some mls services allow the seller to say “subject to seller finding suitable replacement housing”. Our mls does not allow listings with this type of contingency (many do) as it is potentially “not really for sale”. So making the exception for short sale properties with NO prior indication that the lender will consider a short sale, is inappropriate.

I think they should move to “letter on file from lienholder indicating a willingness to consider offers”, at minimum. That would force the seller to provide the short sale package from the seller side to the lender in advance of offers being made.

As Jillayne has indicated time and again, often the lienholder will not release the seller from future obligation at the end, and that is what causes the sale to fail. Our paperwork at present has no place where the seller indicates UP FRONT what their position will be if they are presented with the option to close IF they sign a note for the difference. There is really no reason this has to wait until the sale fails 4 months in, only to find out that because the seller has the means to pay, but won’t. There should be a “letter on file that seller agrees to sign an unsecured note for the shortfall, if needed for the sale to close”. Then the agents and the buy can better calculate the odds of it closing, and more will actually close.

The reason many are failing is not the bank’s fault, as many of these issues could have been foreseen, but the right questions are not being raised prior to the property being listed in the mls in the first place.

re “3 1/2 months of work”…I recently opened an escrow on a short sale for a buyer client. It became obvious to me, though not the listing agent, that it couldn’t close. I knew this by the end of the first week. We switched to a different property. Any agent or escrow should know if it’s a long shot or a safe bet pretty early on in the process, and the buyer deserves to know that all short sales are not created equally based on seller factors NOT what is owed vs. sale price. It’s not a numbers game where you see what sticks to the wall and make everyone work unnecessarily without being forewarned that this one is a “long shot”, so they can manage their time and resources accordingly.

A sale cannot #fail on commission issues. Agents are not party to the purchase and sale contract, and the commission is via separate listing contract that is not part of closing, except by “common practice”. If the escrow company won’t close it out, try moving it to an attorney based closing.

My guess is the payoff was such that the only way to “clear the table” was for someone to bridge the gap, vs the lender stating “4%”. The normal situation would be there is $320,000 in net proceeds after costs (including commissions) and the lienholder won’t accept less than $325,000. Someone has to come up with the extra $5,000 for it to close. While someone at escrow may say “if the agent’s reduce their commission by $5,000 we can close it” that is not the same as saying the sale failed on commission dispute issues. This is not true in all states. Some states include the commission amount as part of the purchase and sale contract between the buyer and the seller. CA did last I looked; but not WA in most cases, FSBO being the exception.

The mishandling of short sales happens when everyone is only talking about what the house is worth and what is owed, which is often irrelevant in short sale negotiations. The seller has to prove a hardship or sign a personal note for the difference, in most cases. The lienholder gets a full package that the buyer doesn’t see that indicates full financial position. If the seller is showing equity in another property or a stock portfolio, the gap is put there for the seller to pay it based on the financials, not the agents.

It amazes me that sellers still answer “yes” on Form 17 Seller Disclosure Statement on the first line that says “do you have sole authority to sell this home?” The answer is NO and that is why it is a house that is not really for sale. It’s the same as if a wife tried to sell a house without her husband’s consent…and no mls would let a listing like that get “in”.

More regulation re Title would have to be State to State, as “Title” has a more significant role in “non-escrow states” where Title cost includes the closing function. When I first moved from East Coast to West Coast in 1998, it did look like duplicate charges, but I haven’t compared the total cost with non-escrow states recently. Used to be in non-escrow states, Title Company did the closing pretty much gratis except for 3rd party costs like County recording fees.