California News

CBS2-KCAL - 1 hr 29 mins ago
CBS2-KCAL - 1 hr 36 mins ago
NBC 4 - 1 hr 43 mins ago

Multimedia News

Ironman World Championships
8 photos
Chrissie Wellington, of Great Britain, winner...
Women getting it done
20 photos
Anti-government protesters occupying the grou...
Female sluggers on the court and stump
20 photos
Russia's Vera Dushevina returns a shot to Ser...
LA and Philly battle for the pennant
20 photos
Justin Maiuro of Mantua, NJ, shows off his Ph...
PETA gets naked and bloody again
16 photos
Partially clothed protesters seen with taped ...

S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans

Jun 15, 2007 3:00 AM (485 days ago) by Adam Martin, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
Jennifer Wilson, right, and her attorney, Timothy Flaherty, are fighting a law that restricts the price Wilson can get for her condo.
(Bret Putnam/Special to The Examiner)
Jennifer Wilson, right, and her attorney, Timothy Flaherty, are fighting a law that restricts the price Wilson can get for her condo.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - When Jennifer Wilson bought her first home, a condominium on Nob Hill, it seemed like a sound entry-level investment. The 39-year-old FBI criminal lawyer paid $473,000 for the grimy one-bedroom apartment, which she spent two years fixing up to the tune of $40,000.

But when the upwardly mobile federal employee was offered a promotion and move to Washington, D.C., and began looking into selling her apartment, she discovered that the unit was under a strict price control as part of The City’s Condominium Conversion Program, and that she couldn’t legally get more than $200,000 for the sale.

The program governs the conversion of rental apartments to condominiums. In order to maintain The City’s affordable housing stock, a certain percentage of each development must be sold below market rate. That so-called restricted housing can only be resold at its restricted rate, prescribed by the Mayor’s Office of Housing, not market rate.

According to Wilson and her lawyer, Timothy Flaherty, the unit should have been sold for about $180,000 to somebody who qualified for restricted housing. As an FBI agent and attorney, Wilson does not qualify.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Wilson bought the condo in March of 2004 in a probate sale after the original owner, Lola Jane Anderholm, died. Anderholm’s brother, Beuford Hopkins, listed the apartment with Pacific Union real estate company for $499,000, Wilson said. Anderholm had lived in the apartment since the late 1970s and bought it in the 1980s when it was converted into a condominium and dedicated low-income, according to Flaherty.

Photographs Wilson took at the time of the sale showed a dingy apartment with damaged paint, plaster, floors and windows, which Wilson repaired while she lived in the unit. The repairs cost $40,000 altogether, Wilson said, but she said she expected to recoup that amount in the sale.

According to a lawsuit Wilson filed against the brokers and seller last year — Leon and Polina De-Levi, Beuford Hopkins and McGuire Real Estate agent Kevin Campbell, who represented Wilson — they had two opportunities to tell Wilson about the restriction on the apartment, which they failed to do.

The restriction, according to the lawsuit, was indicated on the title report ordered by Pacific Union before the sale. The De-Levis and Campbell both reviewed the report, but neither alerted Wilson that the apartment was restricted and she did not qualify to buy it for the reduced price, the lawsuit alleges.

Brokers on both sides earned a commission of the sale. “The higher the price, the more money everybody makes,” Flaherty said Wednesday. “These are experts. They have duties toward Jennifer.”

Wilson said Wednesday that she would not be allowed to sell the apartment for much more than about $200,000. She said the last apartment sold in the building went for nearly $800,000. A search Thursday revealed several comparable, one-bedroom Nob Hill apartments listed for the same price.

In the lawsuit, Wilson claims a loss of about $500,000. “This could potentially wipe me out financially,” Wilson said Wednesday. I’m not even 40 years old and I’m looking at financial ruin.”

Attorney Alexander Weyand, who represents Pacific Union and the De-Levis declined to comment on the case Wednesday. Dennis Shanaghar, who represents McGuire and Campbell, did not return calls for comment. Neither did Beuford Hopkins, who sold the apartment to Wilson.

Conversion law

The Old Law: The condominium conversion law, passed in 1980, required a percentage of apartments converted to condominiums in a building to be sold for below market rate.

The New Law: A 2002 inclusionary housing ordinance requires all new developments to include low- to moderate-income units. It prevents full condo conversions of large apartment buildings.

- Source: Mayor’s Office of Housing

After losing promotion, woman's only course of action was lawsuit

A woman who inadvertently bought a designated below-market-rate apartment at market rate has little recourse and is one of few people this happens to each year.

Jennifer Wilson has very little choice but to sue everyone involved, a process that has already cost her a “dream job” at the FBI.

According to Doug Shoemaker, the housing development director for the Mayor’s Office of Housing, Wilson is doing the only thing she can in order to recoup her losses. “That’s what we encourage people to do,” he said Thursday. “Based on what our staff has seen over the last couple of years, we think it happens once or twice a year that someone comes forward with something like this. From our perspective, this is a real problem that the companies are not catching these restrictions, and it [the onus] is on them.”

Wilson, an FBI agent and lawyer who heads the bureau’s legal team in the San Francisco field office, discovered in 2006 that the apartment she bought at market rate in 2004 was restricted under a 20-year-old condo conversion program, meaning she can’t sell it for its current market value, or anything above roughly $220,000.

Wilson made the discovery after she put in for a promotion in early 2006. She applied for a job she described as a “lateral promotion” to the criminal division at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.

“It would have been a very good career move for me,” Wilson said. “I wanted that position. I wanted to work for that division chief. It was honestly the one job I was interested in going back there for.”

But because of the unfolding financial nightmare surrounding her apartment and subsequent lawsuit against the brokers and seller, Wilson had to turn down the promotion, a move the FBI penalized by preventing her from applying for any other promotions for a year.

“I couldn’t support this, support litigation and support myself in D.C. … It’s been the most emotionally difficult, stressful thing I’ve ever been through, so I couldn’t imagine trying to start a new job.”

Shoemaker said his office is working with Wilson on her next move, but she’ll have to vacate the apartment eventually so that it can be sold to someone who qualifies for the controlled rate.

amartin@examiner.com

Staff Writer Josh Sabatini contributed to this report.


What do you think of the condo conversion law?

Share your comments below.

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

4:50 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 1, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
All involved in this fiasco are imbeciles.... no wonder the country is being driven bankrupt by the real estate bubble.... and all the greedy fools who have participated in their upward $$$ mobility....lawyers, bankers and real estate tycoons... and they don't bother to read the fine print... and it was such common knowledge the property was under low/moderate income... it had to be for the conversion to take place... Lola Jane she must be rolling in her grave... God Bless Her

91 agree | 101 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

1:30 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 21, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

wheaties said:
with that kind of money, she should have purchased a reasonable house. i don't care much for condos, they're been nothing but faddish. a small house is always much bigger than a condo. no such thing as upstairs/downstairs on a condo.

142 agree | 104 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:01 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
What does her competency as an attorney or agent have to do with it? We all pay real estate agents plenty on both sides to "represent" us in these transactions...shame on her real estate agent for missing this. Hope this works out for her.

121 agree | 111 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:32 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 28, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
These units are deed-restricted. Something is terribly wrong if the seller, buyer, real estate brokers, title company and bank all missed that little factoid. And I agree in wondering just how competent an attorney or FBI agent she really is.

177 agree | 120 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:51 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 27, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
We should let owners convert and sell any unit they want.

118 agree | 112 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:35 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 26, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
Clearly the unintended consequences of this policy are higher real estate prices which are slowly squeezing the middle class from SF. The logical end of this policy is a SF populated by those wealthy enough to afford almost anything and those "protected" by the law. This extreme case just exposes the weaknesses of the policy but the owner should be protected by the title insurer and agent E&O insurance.

124 agree | 130 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:08 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 18, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
Thats what title insurance is for.

110 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:10 PM MST on Sun., Jun. 17, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
The fact that she is an attorney is moot. The vast majority of people who buy homes are NOT lawyers. That is why we pay agents and title companies tens of thosands of dollars to examine the title. The sale to the attorney violated the "law", however stupid and misguided the "law" of SF is, and the sale should be null and void with the title company and the RE agent holding the bag. That is if the sale isn't fraudulent...which makes the FBI agent's job even easier. She will win the case easily, it's a no-brainer.

127 agree | 103 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:00 PM MST on Sun., Jun. 17, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
What right does the city have to say what a condo can sell for? Somebody will pay...whether it be the attorney, the taxpayers, of the people of SF who actually work for a living. What a mismanaged city! All Fed funds should be pulled from this money shredder so it can either crumble into the sea or get its act together.

155 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:49 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 16, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
She should donate the house to the ACLU so they can protect our civil rights and defend the Constitution from people who would seek to turn America into a police state.

173 agree | 125 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:10 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 16, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
I understand now why it seems that so often the criminals are winning, be it fraudulent credit card late fees, scan real estate "liar loan", criminal hospital overbilling, corporate executives looting hundreds of millions of dollars in false "compensation"...it is because our fbi lawyers cannot even review a simple title document..... I think it is shameful that an FBI agent entrusted with conducting complex criminal investigations on behalf of the United States would fall for a common real estate scam.

155 agree | 128 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:53 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
I'll put a slightly different spin on this story than the other posts (the Dr. Phil re-mix) Trying to climb the career ladder, living in big expensive cities and flipping real estate isn't all there is in life. I too dislike losing money and can completely sympathize. However, thoughts of accumulating money and attaining success can completely consume some people. If she's working lots of hours as an FBI Agent while trying to fix up a house, she's probably been burning the candle at both ends. People who do that should question if they're doing it for the right reasons.

120 agree | 119 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:32 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

noni said:
The law is another socialist-type scheme to get middle-class buyers to subsidize other middle-class buyers. The below market rate set asides raise the price of homes for all and discourage the creation of new homes by developers. Our Bd. of Supv. thinks people who work and save to buy a place should have to pay a penance for for their "sin" of being successful.

141 agree | 135 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:31 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
you forgot to mention that the appraiser hired by the lender also missed the title restriction. amazing

171 agree | 125 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:05 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
it is amazing how many people missed this: the selling estate, the estates attorney, the probate court, the title company, the buyer who is an attorney, the buyer broker and the buyers lender. Also, the HOA of the condominum where property is located. If this is a purchase money mortgage, her liability to the lender is the value of the property, 200K. rather than any higher amount. she has incured a loss but not as big as it could have been. Doesn't look like anything other than sloppiness on everybody's part.

184 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:54 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
I'd rather invest in real estate in Cuba where restrictions on private property are less strict thatn in San Francisco.

133 agree | 142 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:29 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
The Real Estate agency should be libel for not only the cost of the loss for the saleprice but future financial loss because of the loss of a very lucrative career move....not to mention pain and suffering for the stress of the whole situation...cost of lher lawyers, etc....she is getting totally screwed

206 agree | 130 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:33 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

SF Resident said:
Ummm, this seems to be the fault of the Real Estate Agency that didn't bother to tell the owner of the restriction when she was buying the place (that agency should have to cover her losses). But you're right, of course, I bet poor people would be lined up out the door to buy a $200,000 condo! Those kinds of prices certainly aren't aimed at the middle class at all.

155 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:05 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "S.F. condo rules snarl FBI agent’s plans"

Examiner Reader said:
What do you expect for liberal San Fran? Only care about the poor, how about us middle class people?

198 agree | 128 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Advertisement