Income approach appraisals would stabilize house prices

House prices volatility, both up and down, results from residential real estate appraisers using the comparative sales approach without considering a properties potential rental income.

Irvine Home Address … 14 ROCKY Gln #22 Irvine, CA 92603

Resale Home Price …… $450,000

Of our elaborate plans, the end

Of everything that stands, the end

The Doors — The End

Most people would agree that preventing financial bubbles is preferable to cleaning up the mess in the aftermath. The ups and downs of housing prices must end. The housing bubble shattered the dreams and aspirations of a generation. Some of the wealth lost was an illusion, but those who lost their family homes lost something tangible and real.

Great Britain is trying to recover from its fourth housing bubble in the last 40 years. That rivals California's three bubbles during that span. They too are looking for answers to prevent bubble number five from wiping out their wealth and their economy.

'Cap mortgages at 90% of value' to prevent bubble

Price stability should be government priority

Bloomberg — June 3, 2011

London: UK lenders should cap mortgages at 90 per cent of the property's value and no more than three-and-a-half times a household's annual income to prevent another housing bubble, the Institute for Public Policy Research said.

In The Great Housing Bubble, I proposed capping lending at a 90% loan-to-value ratio just as this group has done. I like the idea:

There are a number of reasons why high combined-loan-to-value lending is a bad idea: (1) it promotes speculation by shifting the risk to the lender, (2) it encourages predatory borrowing where borrowers “put” the property to a lender, (3) it promotes a high default rate because borrowers are not personally invested in the property, (4) it discourages saving as it becomes unnecessary, and (5) it artificially inflates prices as it eliminates a barrier to market entry. This last reason is one of the arguments used to get rid of downpayment requirements. The consequences of this folly became readily apparent once prices started to fall.

Also in The Great Housing Bubble, I explored capping the loan-to-income ratio, and I found the approach lacking:

Another proposed solution is to regulate the loan-to-income ratio of the borrower. When 30-year fixed-rate mortgages first came out, mortgage debt was limited to two and one-half times a borrower’s yearly income. It was an artificial limit that made sense when interest rates were higher and people were accustomed to putting less money toward housing payments. A legislative cap on the loan-to-income ratio would prevent future housing bubbles, if it was enforced. This would not work for the same reason lenders went away from the two-and-one-half-times-income standard years ago: it does not reflect changes in borrowing power due to changes in interest rates. This idea of regulating loan-to-income ratios is actually an evolution of the idea of regulating interest rates. If the total loan-to-income ratio is limited, very low interest rates do not cause dramatic price increases, but since low interest rates were not really the cause of the bubble, limiting the loan-to-income ratio is not addressing the real cause of the bubble. Plus, there are ways to get around a cap on home loan borrowing by obtaining other loans not secured by real estate. It would be relatively easy for a borrower to obtain bridge financing to acquire a property and then obtain a HELOC to pay off the bridge financing. In the end, the borrower would have borrowed more than the cap amount thus rendering any cap meaningless. To close the various loopholes, more regulations would be required, and a regulatory nightmare would ensue.

Back to the article:

The UK's “addiction to house-price inflation” is damaging the economy and the Conservative-led coalition government should make price stability a priority, the London- based advisory group said in a report.

“Britain has suffered four housing bubbles in the last 40 years, each of which contributed to major economic and social problems,” Nick Pearce, a director at the IPPR, said in the statement. “We need tougher mortgage-market regulation from the FSA, especially caps on loan-to-value and loan-to-income ratios.”

The Financial Services Authority regulates UK mortgage providers and other lenders. House prices tripled in the ten years through 2006, rising by 12 per cent a year, IPPR said. Mortgage lending is 81 per cent of GDP in the UK compared with 73 per cent in the US.

No deposit

The average loan for a first-time buyer was 3.15 times annual household income in March, IPPR spokesman Richard Darlington said by e-mail. In 2007, when the UK's real estate market peaked, 28 per cent of all advanced mortgages had loan-to- income ratios of 3.5 or more. First-time buyers regularly took out mortgages of 100 per cent of the property's value.

Great Britain was doing the same stupid things we were in the United States.

… Fall in demand

Mortgage applications in the US fell for the first time in five weeks as refinancing cooled.

The Mortgage Bankers Association's index of loan applications dropped 4 per cent in the week ended May 27. The group's refinancing index declined 5.7 per cent and the purchase gauge was unchanged.

Falling home prices are keeping more buyers on the sidelines while making it harder for homeowners to refinance current mortgages. Unemployment at 9 per cent and the prospect of more foreclosures in the pipeline mean housing will take time to recover.

Nobody wants to buy an asset they think will go down in value,” Neil Dutta, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York, said before the report.

Capping lending and tethering it to a reasonable and affordable percentage of borrower income is essential to prevent future housing bubbles, but the problem is more complex because capping a loan at 90% value requires understanding what value is. Our current approach to residential property valuation relies exclusively on comparative sales, and it is a flawed system.

The income approach appraisal

When lenders underwrite investment property loans, they have an appraiser establish fair-market rents, and they generally consider between 65% and 75% of that income toward qualification for the loan. In places were properties are trading 25% or more below rental parity, the net income of the property will cover the payment, taxes, and insurance. These are low risk loans for lenders that provide them higher interest rates.

If applied to a typical residential real estate transaction, an income approach appraisal would reveal which properties generate sufficient cashflow to cover the loan in the event the lender had to take the property back. If lenders had the income information to compare to comparable sales, they would quickly see which properties are inflated in price and are thereby the riskier loans.

Loans on properties in Orange County with a negative cashflow should require larger down payments and more borrower income and assets. In contrast, a Las Vegas property with a positive cashflow would require smaller down payments and no other collateral to cover the loan. In the event of foreclosure, a lender could rent out the cashflow positive property and receive their desired income stream which effectively mitigates their risk. Lenders take on more risk than they realize when they loan on cashflow negative properties.

I wrote about income approach appraisals in The Great Housing Bubble:

There is one potential market-based solution that would require no government regulation or intervention that would prevent future bubbles from being created with borrowed capital: change the method of appraisal for residential real estate from valuations based exclusively on the comparative-sales approach to a valuation derived from the lesser of the income approach and the comparative-sales approach. … In the current lending system, the income approach is widely ignored.

… When the fallout from the Great Housing Bubble is evaluated, it is clear that the comparative-sales approach simply enables irrational exuberance because the past foolish behavior of buyers becomes the basis for future valuations allowing other buyers to continue bidding up prices with lender and investor money. Prices collapsed in the Great Housing Bubble because prices became greatly detached from their fundamental valuation of income and rent. This occurred because the comparative-sales approach enables prices to rise based on the irrational exuberance of buyers. If lenders would have limited their lending based on the income approach, and if they would not have loaned money beyond what the rental cashflow from the property could have produced, any price bubble would have to have been built with buyer equity, and lender and investor funds would not have been put at risk. There is no way to prevent future bubbles, and the commensurate imperilment of our financial system, as long as the comparative-sales approach is the exclusive basis of appraisals for residential real estate.

When I wrote those words, the deflation of the housing bubble had not overshot to the downside in any market. My focus above was on preventing prices from going up too much, but this approach can also address problems we are seeing in markets like Las Vegas where prices have gone down too much.

In a declining market, lenders are cautious because nobody knows what anything is worth, and if lenders underwrite big loans that subsequently go underwater, borrowers walk away from their debts and leave lenders holding collateral worth less than their loan balance. As a consequence, lenders want to be conservative, so they rely on appraisers to keep values comfortably within range of recent comps, no matter how low those comps may be.

There comes a point when recent comps are so low that a property is undervalued based on its potential for cashflow, but since lenders don't use the income approach when evaluating residential real estate, they are not aware of these key price support levels and they approve short sales and REO resales at very low prices. An example comes from a recent community I saw in Las Vegas:

I discovered this neighborhood while looking at another auction property nearby. The property of interest is in a cluster product neighborhood in a nice part of Henderson, Nevada. All the properties were built in 2005 and sold new in the mid 200s.

The list of comparables below are all in the cluster neighborhood, and they are arranged in descending order of closing dates. Take a careful look at the sales price in the column second from the right.

The properties in the above list would all rent for about $1,000 to $1,100. The properties that sold in the $110,000 to $115,000 range represented good cashflow investments yielding 8% or more. In an environment of 1% CD rates and 4.5% mortgage interest rates, an 8% yield is fantastic. The resale value of this neighborhood did not need a 40% reduction to attract buyers. Lenders should never have approved those sales.

If the lender had merely rented their property out instead of dumping it for 40% under comps, the cashflow from the rental would have been nearly double the cashflow from the subsequent loan on the property. A lender in Las Vegas trying to finance its own REO would be well served by renting the property instead. Lenders can get $450 per month in a loan payment if they sell it and underwrite the new loan, or they can net about $750 a month on the rental if they keep it.

Of course, banks aren't REITs, and they don't want to own property long term, but in the short term, they would be much better off renting property. The could dispose these assets through a special home investment trust. An entity receiving the positive cashflow from the millions of rentals would have significant value, and it would provide better asset recovery than lenders are getting now.

Sell with new debt or keep as rental?

For example, B of A and other major banks try to sell their REO to people who take out loans from them. B of A gets capital out of a non-productive asset and converts it to loan payments. They can hold this new loan on their balance sheets or they can sell it in the secondary market. With Bernanke giving them free money, most banks are keeping the best loans for themselves.

However, instead of converting this non-performing asset to a performing stream of income by selling the property and underwriting a loan, the bank could retain ownership and rent the property. Banks would get more value from these properties by selling off the shares of a cashflow property REIT than they will by underwriting loans with much smaller cashflow.

If lenders also looked at cashflow values in terms of rental yields, they could see when they are selling undervalued properties and chose to rent those out instead. The amend, extend, pretend policy they are using to prop up prices in some markets is an attempt to hold on to what they believe to be undervalued assets. But since they are not looking at cashflow, they have no idea which markets have undervalued properties and which ones are overvalued.

In Las Vegas, some version of amend, extend, pretend is the best course of action for lenders because they can rent the properties and obtain better cashflow than if they sold them and put new debt on them. In Orange County, most properties are still reselling for more than rental parity, so lenders cannot rent them out for better cashflow than selling them and putting on new debt.

If lenders were basing their decisions on rental cashflow value — something they could do if they were obtaining appraisals using the income approach — they would quickly realize (1) they are selling properties they should be holding, and (2) they are holding properties they should be selling.

In a recent article, Dean Baker pointed out the foolishness of current government policies toward housing:

As far as the housing market, a little clearer thought would get policy to distinguish between markets where the bubble is still deflating (e.g. Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston) and markets where prices are likely overshooting on the low side (e.g. Los Vegas and Phoenix). It might make sense to have policies to boost prices in the latter set of cities. It makes no sense to have policies to boost prices in the former.

Mr. Baker proposes the right-to-rent as a public policy to address this problem. I believe income approach appraisals would give lenders better valuation tools so they could make better decisions concerning property liquidations on a market by market basis. Any lender looking at rental parity would liquidate their holdings where prices were inflated and hold properties where prices have overshot to the downside. Currently, that is the opposite of what lenders are doing, and their failure to understand valuation is going to cost them billions of dollars while the liquidations go forward over the next several years.

Large down payment lost

The owner of today's featured property paid $645,000 using a $417,000 first mortgage and a $228,000 down payment. He obtained a $100,900 HELOC on 1/15/2008, but there is no indication he used it. If this property sells for its current asking price, the owner will get a check for $6,000 of his remaining equity. That's $228,000 put in and $6,000 coming out. This was probably not the real estate investment this owner was looking for.

Irvine House Address … 14 ROCKY Gln #22 Irvine, CA 92603

Resale House Price …… $450,000

House Purchase Price … $645,000

House Purchase Date …. 4/16/2007

Net Gain (Loss) ………. ($222,000)

Percent Change ………. -34.4%

Annual Appreciation … -8.6%

Cost of House Ownership


$450,000 ………. Asking Price

$15,750 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.54% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$434,250 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$94,741 ………. Income Requirement

$2,211 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$390 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$94 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$499 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$497 ………. Homeowners Association Fees


$3,691 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$356 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$568 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$27 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$76 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves


$2,870 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands


$4,500 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$4,500 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$4,342 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$15,750 ………. Down Payment


$29,092 ………. Total Cash Costs

$43,900 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves


$72,992 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 14 ROCKY Gln #22 Irvine, CA 92603


Beds: 2

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1600


Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: Two Level, Contemporary

View: Trees/Woods

Year Built: 1978

Community: Turtle Rock

County: Orange

MLS#: P779770

Source: SoCalMLS

Status: Active




BTW, you may find this interesting: Realtors go after blogger who says they lie. Freedom of speech?

41 thoughts on “Income approach appraisals would stabilize house prices

  1. winstongator

    I wonder where the down payment for this property came from. Making $228k/yr, saving 10%/yr would take 10 years, 20%/yr would take 5. Imagine 10 years of solid 401k contributions gone. The danger of leverage that had worked so well for so many as long as prices were going up.

    Comp sales analysis is really a garbage way of appraising properties. However, if you were to look at rents for my neighborhood, there are 2 active rentals, both under contract. It would be hard to extrapolate from those two data points, especially to homes roughly 2x as expensive.

    I would say go with a cost-to-build appraisal, but when land is such a large component of the value of a home, it becomes much more difficult to assess that cost.

    What was interesting about comp-sales is the most recent sale of a given home was never used. If a home sold for $450k last year, shouldn’t that be a decent comp? But a couple of neighboring homes cranked at 20%/yr appreciation, so now the home is worth $540k?

    For lower down payments I’d like to see higher interest rates and shorter terms. Just using a 15 vs. 30yr changes your equity position, with 0 down from 8.2% – barely enough to cover the realtor – to over 25% – enough to get a check at closing. You also end up with higher payments which doesn’t allow people to stretch as far.

  2. socalappraiser


    The standard boilerplate I’ve read on 98% of the bubble related appraisals I’ve reviewed is something like “single family rental property is not prevelent in the subject area, therefore income approach is not utilized”.

    This with the fact that two different valuation models have to be used leaving only the “cost” approach to accompany the sales comparison method. I can’t even tell you the BS boilerplate I read in that section. This is why the bank via Andrew Cuomo has some “appraiser” (likely who thinks there is a z in the the word appraisal) drive from Hesperia to do an appraisal in Oceanside for $170 but charges the borrower $500. What kind of due diligence do you think was done on that report? Geographic competency? It is a complete joke. If the banks wanted to know the value of the collateral they would have retained staff and review appraisers that protected them instead of painting them as “deal killers”. Schadenfreude in full effect for every one of these used house salesmen, loan shysters and home debtors that deserve it!

    1. Shevy

      Using this approach makes too much sense. SoCalappraiser is right; our appraisal system is a mess. We complete IHB reports all over Orange County and I have yet to run into an issue finding rental comps to establish what a property will lease for, or an IHB fundamental value based upon comparable leases. If this approach were used during the bubble or even today for that matter and it was explained to buyers that even though they want/wanted to pay $700,000 for a property that will lease for $2100, the bank will not give them a loan for more than $300,000 because it does not make sense it would have saved a lot of buyers. Moreover, this will allow the market to get more involved which is what they want anyways as a result of the issues that Fannie and Freddie have. The market will likely eventually provide an option that will allow consumers to pay a higher interest rate and take loans for properties that are above rental parity, however, it will force them to question why they are paying 7% rather than 4.5% for a home that makes sense.

      What’s sad is that no group will stand up for this because they are all too near-sighted. It would be great to see agent organizations or other groups support common sense policy like this. If a buyer wants to bring more down or find a portfolio lender they can and it should prevent our government from backing loans that don’t make sense and will help to protect consumers at the same time.

      1. zubs

        If a bank wants to loan someone 600,000 dollars for a 700,000 dollar house that rents at 2,100 dollars, then they should be able to do that. The problem happened when the government bailed out the banks that took on these risky loans. The bank with the risky loans should have failed.

        That would be the market solution to this problem instead of making more complicated rules so we can confuse the subject even more.

        1. matt138


          Government involvement is what makes this problem systemic. Christ why cant people see this? Being overly focused on the regulation aspect is staring at the trees and missing the forest.

          The only solution is the free market solution.

          1. bigmoneysalsa

            What happens when half the banks in the nation fail all at once? It’s entirely possible given a financial meltdown like the aftermath of a bubble. We’re looking at some pretty big externalities. Looking at history, these kinds of event were causing severe recessions in the US (for example the Panic of 1893) long before we had anything like the regulation we have now. If you get rid of govt regulation it’s hard to see why events like this wouldn’t continue.

            I agree we should let stupid banks fail, but unless you have govt regulating their activities and/or limiting their size, their failure is going to cause a lot of pain to the rest of us when it happens.

        2. AZDavidPhx

          The majority do not want a free market as roughly 64% of the country are houseowners or housedebtors who depend on the Government presence in the market to keep their equity above water. That’s the entire problem. No arithetic or logic is going to change their mind if the solution results in lower house prices.

          Of course they real winners are the banks; it just goes to show you how the masses can be conditioned if you throw them some scraps off the dinner table.

        3. Shevy

          I agree to a point. First, the banks are still taking on similar risky loans daily that are being funneled to the government in the form of FHA and loans that are underwritten to meet and be sold to Fannie and Freddie. This is the point. If a bank wants to keep appraising the way they are now, they should not be allowed to resell the loan to Fannie or Freddie or be insured through FHA. Grant it, underwriting standards have improved; however, many risky loans are originated daily.

          Second, the problem is that the banks were packaging them and reselling them while at the same time they were betting against them. Moreover, the incentive system made many people wealthy for doing this at the expense of hard working honest people; these bankers have not and will probably never face the consequences of their actions. They got rich on the backs of the average American and left many American’s holding the bag with no consequences.

          Moreover, currently a majority of loans are being sold to Fannie and Freddie. I agree that a free market solution is better, however, if a free market solution is not eased into there will be consequences that will likely hurt a large majority; therefore, it’s not likely going to happen. The income approach is a common sense solution, if buyers don’t like the limitations that the income approach for appraisals creates it will force and create opportunity a free market alternative.

    2. SanJoseRenter

      “The standard boilerplate I’ve read on 98% of the bubble related appraisals I’ve reviewed is something like “single family rental property is not prevalent in the subject area …”

      In that case nearby average condo rents should be used in the comp formula for mortgages rather than punt on rental value.

      Occupying an SFR is not a right, and families can always substitute when necessary if they can’t pay 100% cash.

  3. Perspective

    “…’Nobody wants to buy an asset they think will go down in value,’ Neil Dutta, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York, said before the report…”

    Really? Then why does everyone buy “assets” that go down in value? Choose your words better Neil Dutta…

  4. RahRahGrl

    I have one lingering question about this idea that banks become landlords, at least until it makes sense financially to sell: What about the added cost of property management, HOAs (so prevalent out here — $500 a month on todays’s 2 bdrm property!!), etc.?

    In my field, people are expensive and usually the biggest part of our budget. But the banks would have to hire someone (or a service – and someone to be in charge of handling that service) to go out there, clean out the property, advertise, find renters, etc. That manpower costs.

    Plus being responsible for all the fees and maintenance that goes with owning a property is going to cost them too.

    So from my naive perspective, each property the banks were considering foreclosing would have to go through a careful analysis of costs renting versus owning. Sure, it’s possible. But what is the likelihood that these big organizations have the policies and types of people around able to do this? It strikes me as yet another way for the banks to lose money.

    1. Shevy

      Rahrahgirl, you bring up a good point, however, imagine you can borrow money at 1% or less as the banks do from customers and the government. The cap rates, even in Irvine are still over 2%, even after expeneses. Although I don’t think banks should be allowed to hold and lease out their properties, it could be a good choice in some areas.

      If I could borrow money from the government for under 1% I would hold properties all day at 3%+ cap rates, or better yet in Vegas where cap rates are 8%+.

      1. winstongator

        Banks could set up Special Investment Vehicles – they already do to hide all sorts of toxic assets. Sell the REO to the SIV & have the SIV manage as a rental.

        So banks can hold the income stream from a mishmash of mishmash of tranches of subprime mortgages (CDO-squared), but they can’t hold some residential property?

        The biggest expense for banks has been asset write-downs. Merrill paid out tens of billions in bonuses & other comp, but it was the many tens of billions in write-downs that forced the sale to BoA.

        There is another organization with the manpower & solid financial footing combined with large REO inventory to take this undertaking on, but I don’t think they have the stomach to try…

  5. bltserv

    Its called a depreciating asset class. And for the last few years it now includes Real Estate.

    When you buy a car you can usually project its depreciation over its life expectency. Now a Diamond Ring is a whole diffent asset class. If you know what your doing and dont pay retail. That diamond is a actually a fair investment.
    Its not going to wear out and will hold its value faily well over the long term.

    But from what I see with Real Estate here in Irvine. Rents are pretty flat. And prices are still slowly slipping lower. The only thing keeping it going in Irvine is the influx of Asian Money.

    Somebody should start a list of the Percentage of closed deals that have Asian Surnames. My guess would be above 65% of all Irvine sales are Asian FCB`s.

    1. zubs

      My aunt owns 3 houses in Turtle Rock which she rents out at the moment. Bought in the 1990s. Although she bought a long time ago, she is an FCB. She earned the money to buy those houses in a foreign country, and not USA..and she is still looking for more properties today.

    1. DarthFerret

      LOL! You go IR!!! 😀

      Good to see that you got their attention!!!

      This incident also shows the wisdom in Larry’s choice NOT to join the NAR/CAR/OCAR, because now he doesn’t give them to opportunity, no matter how symbolic, of throwing him out of their club of thieves and liars.

      This reminds me of when that lady sued Taco Bell a few months back, claiming that their taco meat couldn’t be advertised as “beef”. Taco Bell promptly took out a full-page ad in the WSJ with “Thank You for Suing Us” in bold letters across the top. They made the issue a centerpiece of their advertising campaign, and they were able to prove that their meat was over 80% pure beef (the rest is spices, flavorings, and fillers such as flour), not the 30% or less that the lawsuit was claiming. The lawsuit has since been dropped without any settlement payment from Taco Bell.

      Larry should thank the OCAR for advertising for his blog! 🙂


    2. AZDavidPhx


      IrvineRenter, this is great publicity for the blog. Everyone knows that “r”ealtors are liars. Of course they have all these vague and ambiguous ethics platitudes that they have to make the definition of “lie” open to interpretation and basically give themselves plausible deniability. This is ultimately the source of their “grievance”. Don’t let the slick talking sleezebags get you down.

    3. zubs

      That article is good publicity for this site. It also means this blog is having an effect. Good job.

    1. AZDavidPhx

      This is hilarious.

      My question for the “r”ealtor scumbag who filed the “grievance”: Is it lying if you delist a property and then re-list it and claim to unsuspecting buyers that the property just entered the market? YES, that is lying. The property did not just come onto the market, you just pulled a fast one to rush the buyer into making an offer. LIAR.

      1. SanJoseRenter

        “Realtors must not knowingly lie about competitors”

        I don’t even know where to start with that.

        Since a realtor’s first responsibility is to their client, how would that even matter?

        Why word it as “not knowingly lie”? Is “not lie” too hard to parse? Does “not knowingly” indicate that research should not be done before slandering a fellow realtor?

        It’s a fact that realtors game days on market. It’s a fact that realtor won’t guarantee permits.
        It’s a fact that realtors won’t guarantee square footage.
        It’s a fact that realtors often refuse to relay offers.

        So … when do realtors tell the truth? Only when it suits them financially.

  6. FreedomCM


    Just saw the article in the reg.

    are you going to comment on the attempted intimidation soon?

  7. DarthFerret

    Homeowner Foreclosures [sic] on Bank of America (Yes, You Heard That Right)

    From the article: “Allen then reported to a local branch of the bank with sheriff’s deputies, who he instructed to remove cash from the tellers’ drawers, furniture, computers and other property. Approximately one hour later, the Naples News reports, the bank manager produced a check for $5,772.88 to satisfy Allen’s fees and additional costs.”



    1. SanJoseRenter

      Entertaining link.

      Note that the owners were former police officers, so they had a bit of an advantage over the average.

      “Don’t try to lie to a liar.”

    2. SanJoseRenter

      Also, note that sheriff’s deputies are nearly always used in seizures and evictions, according to statute. That’s their job, so no surprise there.

      (What’s fascinating is that in Chicago the head sheriff stopped evicting “surprised tenants” evictions due to bank foreclosure. He felt that not notifying the tenants was a violation of a legal posting requirement. The banks were outraged, crying about the failure of the rule of law.)

  8. Soylent Green is People

    I hope tomorrows post is just be a reprint of the Registers article about OCAR and IHB, presented without comment, then watch the Cat-5 industrial strength mockery storm unfold!

    My .02c

    Soylent Green Is People.

    1. AZDavidPhx

      I’m sure will pick up the original article tomorrow. Irvine Renter is about to become a hero.

      1. DarthFerret

        Damn straight!

        I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a national news outlet picks this up before the week’s out. If a kid’s battle to get un-banned from his prom makes national news, then this is surely deserving. You know that a personal interest story like this would strike a chord with all the people that have been swindled by [r]ealtors over the years, too.


        P.S. IR, you may need to upgrade the IHB’s servers soon. I think you’re about to get a lot more traffic in the coming days.

        1. IrvineRenter

          I saw your comment over at the OC Register and laughed out loud. Thanks for the support.

    1. awgee

      Ok, found it. But, I am confused. Does the grievance really say, “Realtors must not knowingly lie about competitors”? Didn’t they check to find out that you are not a realtor? They can not truly be that stupid.

      1. IrvineRenter

        Yes, it really says that, and they did not bother to find out before filing their grievance.

    1. IrvineRenter


      Those are hilarious. Please post them again in the comments tomorrow.

  9. DarthFerret

    There’s one thing you have to ask yourself through all this: WWPRD?

    What Would Planet Realty Do?

    Why, he’d file a [r]ealtor ‘grievance’ against someone who isn’t a [r]ealtor, of course!! LOL, this whole incident has just had me in stitches all day! I can not wait to see how this plays out!



Comments are closed.