Per Property Shark: Lis Pendens filed 6/18/2009 Judgement Expires 6/18/2012 Document Type Lis Pendens Index number 108653/09 Debtor Davis Development Holdings LLC 1055 Park Avenue New York NY Creditor Vanguard Construction And In current practice, a lis pendens is a written notice that a lawsuit has been filed concerning real estate, involving either the title to the property or a claimed... [more]
Per Property Shark:
Lis Pendens filed 6/18/2009
Judgement Expires 6/18/2012
Document Type Lis Pendens
Index number 108653/09
Debtor Davis Development Holdings LLC
1055 Park Avenue
New York NY
Creditor Vanguard Construction And
In current practice, a lis pendens is a written notice that a lawsuit has been filed concerning real estate, involving either the title to the property or a claimed ownership interest in it. The notice is usually filed in the county land records office. Recording a lis pendens against a piece of property alerts a potential purchaser or lender that the property’s title is in question, which makes the property less attractive to a buyer or lender. After the notice is filed, anyone who nevertheless purchases the land or property described in the notice takes subject to the ultimate decision of the lawsuit.
A foreclosure will wipe out a lis pendens. If the lis pendens does not end in a foreclosure at auction, then it will stay a lis pendens where the subsequent buyer will have constructive notice.
[less]
Response by realestate19
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 114
Member since: Jan 2011
They're asking a lot for a small apartment that looks over park ave, but is still on a low floor. Thus, the people walking on park ave can look into your apartment!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by streetview
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 331
Member since: Apr 2008
Per TRD May 20, 2011. Some one has explain how a 30% refinancing interest rate from a conflicted party (New Valley) is even being proposed by Trevor Davis. Does he feel he has some equity left in this 1055 Park?
Lawyers for developer Trevor Davis today urged a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to allow the sale of six condominium units at his troubled project at 1055 Park Avenue, claiming he has signed contracts for five units and expected to have the sixth and final contract signed next week.
According to court documents, Davis has an agreement with Miami-based real estate firm, New Valley, the 50 percent owner of the property's broker, Prudential Douglas Elliman, to refinance the condo building. "A condition of the refinance with New Valley is the simultaneous closing of at least one unit at the property other than the suite apartment," Davis' attorney Scott Markowitz wrote in court filings. Davis filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December after Zimco Holdings, which acquired a $6 million loan on the property, planned to hold a foreclosure auction.
Davis was facing not only a foreclosure on the luxury Park Avenue condominium building at 87th Street, but was going through a bitter two-year divorce proceeding with his wife Diane; a foreclosure lawsuit at his family's apartment at the Empire Condominium; and a lawsuit for back rent at his 860 Lexington Avenue office.
In court documents filed April 19, Davis said that Wrightwood Capital, the senior construction lender at 1055 Park, sold their loan to an entity called 1055 Park, which is controlled by Andreas Badian and that Zimco had the junior mortgage loan. In total, the senior lender was owed $17.6 million, Zimco was owed $6.5 million and another $1.3 million was required to complete the project.
In the filing, Davis' attorneys proposed a refinancing deal that would allow Davis to pay off the Park 1055 loan, buy the Zimco loan for $3 million and satisfy all additional project costs. Davis would then issue a new $2 million note to Zimco. Lawyers for Davis said in court filings that if all the units closed May 27, as scheduled, that would reduce the interest paid to New Valley under the refinancing.
According to court documents, Bank of America and the developer's estranged wife, Diane Davis, have filed objections to the refinancing, claiming that the 30 percent interest rate is excessive and that Davis' unsecured creditors will be prejudiced by some aspects of the refinancing motion.
A May 24 hearing is scheduled on the refinancing of the property, court records show.
Davis declined to comment. William Goldman, lawyers for the senior lender, said he had not reviewed the documents yet. Officials at New Valley and Elliman were not immediately available for comment and nor were attorneys for Diane Davis.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Wbottom
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2142
Member since: May 2010
hare-brained scheme from the get-go
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by West81st
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 5564
Member since: Jan 2008
The aforementioned deal for the penthouse has closed, at $3.85MM vs. a final ask of $4.3MM and an opening price of $9.3MM.
10/05/2009 Listed by 1055 Park Ave at $9,305,200.
10/22/2009 Price decreased by 19% to $7,500,000.
07/01/2010 Price decreased by 19% to $6,100,000.
08/09/2010 Delisted.
08/19/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $6,100,000.
10/12/2010 Listing is no longer available.
10/12/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $4,300,000.
10/12/2010 Prudential Elliman Listing is no longer available.
01/22/2011 Listing entered contract.
05/27/2011 Sale recorded for $3,850,000.
The other ACRIS filing is for #1:
08/19/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $7,500,000.
10/25/2010 Price decreased by 13% to $6,500,000.
05/27/2011 Sale recorded for $5,193,900.
The original price for #1 was clearly higher than $7.5MM, but I don't have access to that listing.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by streetview
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 331
Member since: Apr 2008
West 81st, feel free to update (Oct '10 listing info) the listing prices to actual below. The Super's apt wasn't in the original price list.
Unit 1 original list 5/09 $ 9.300mm
9/10 $ 7.500
Unit 2 original list 5/09 $ 11.950mm
10/10 $ 7.750
Unit 3 original list 5/09 $ 12.000mm
10/10 $ 8.000
Unit 4 original list 5/09 $ 13.500mm
10/10 $ 8.950
PH original list 5/09 $ 8.250mm
1/10 $ 7.500
3/10 $ 6.100
10/10 $ 4.300
Inception total pricing = $ 55.000mm
Current total pricing = $ 36.500mm
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by streetview
over 14 years ago
Posts: 331
Member since: Apr 2008
Final analysis of the Original Offering with final sales per SE.
Unit 1 original list 5/2009 $ 9.300mm
9/2010 $ 7.500
Now 12/2010 $ 6.500mm (30% off from original)
SOLD FOR: $5,193,900 ( 44% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $4.1MM.
Unit 2 original list 5/2009 $ 11.950mm
10/2010 $ 7.750
SOLD FOR: $5,931,306 ( 50% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $6.0MM.
Unit 3 original list 5/2009 $ 12.000mm
10/2010 $ 8.000
Now 12/2010 $ 6.750mm (44% off from original)
SOLD FOR: $5,600,375 ( 53% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $6.4MM.
Unit 4 original list 5/2009 $ 13.500mm
10/10 $ 8.950
Now 12/10 $ 7.500mm (44% off from original)
SOLD FOR: $5,376,680 ( 60% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $8.1MM.
PH original list 5/2009 $ 8.250mm
1/10 $ 7.500
3/10 $ 6.100
10/10 $ 4.300
SOLD FOR: $3,850,000 ( 53% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $4.4MM.
Inception total pricing = $ 55.000mm
10/2010 Current total pricing = $ 36.500mm
12/2010 Current total pricing = $ 33.800mm (39% off from original) That's as in "OUCH"
SOLD FOR: $25.952mm ( 53% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $29MM.
The final sale analysis does not include the Super's apt which appears to have been sold for 500k, which was probably used to settle commissions, etc... The new owners will have to live with a live out super. Oh well, you have the doorman that can get you Broadway show tickets.
The total sales barely covers the debt, so this development has to be a BUST!!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by UWSFamily
over 14 years ago
Posts: 60
Member since: Apr 2010
They probably could have made more money just building a traditional townhouse on the lot.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by joshm56
about 14 years ago
Posts: 4
Member since: Dec 2011
UWSfamily, i agree with you completely! walking past this building, i can see every room (other than bathrooms) on the first couple of floors. living in this building, you are always in public if you dont close the shades. a townhouse in the 80's on park....if they designed it right (aka not glass!) could sell for AT LEAST 35million (just a guess-would depend on the size) and probably wouldn't stay empty for that long.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by streetview
about 13 years ago
Posts: 331
Member since: Apr 2008
Per the NYT, this past weekend 01/13/13, wrote the epitaph for this building.
Such battles are headaches for developers. But their decision to go for classic over modern on the Upper East Side is most likely also motivated by not-so-inspiring sales at some glassy condo towers in the area. Apartments at 949 Park Avenue sold for discounts of up to 27 percent below asking prices, and at 1055 Park Avenue, residences closed for 30 percent to 40 percent below asking, according to Streeteasy.com.
They're asking a lot for a small apartment that looks over park ave, but is still on a low floor. Thus, the people walking on park ave can look into your apartment!
Per TRD May 20, 2011. Some one has explain how a 30% refinancing interest rate from a conflicted party (New Valley) is even being proposed by Trevor Davis. Does he feel he has some equity left in this 1055 Park?
Lawyers for developer Trevor Davis today urged a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to allow the sale of six condominium units at his troubled project at 1055 Park Avenue, claiming he has signed contracts for five units and expected to have the sixth and final contract signed next week.
According to court documents, Davis has an agreement with Miami-based real estate firm, New Valley, the 50 percent owner of the property's broker, Prudential Douglas Elliman, to refinance the condo building. "A condition of the refinance with New Valley is the simultaneous closing of at least one unit at the property other than the suite apartment," Davis' attorney Scott Markowitz wrote in court filings. Davis filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December after Zimco Holdings, which acquired a $6 million loan on the property, planned to hold a foreclosure auction.
Davis was facing not only a foreclosure on the luxury Park Avenue condominium building at 87th Street, but was going through a bitter two-year divorce proceeding with his wife Diane; a foreclosure lawsuit at his family's apartment at the Empire Condominium; and a lawsuit for back rent at his 860 Lexington Avenue office.
In court documents filed April 19, Davis said that Wrightwood Capital, the senior construction lender at 1055 Park, sold their loan to an entity called 1055 Park, which is controlled by Andreas Badian and that Zimco had the junior mortgage loan. In total, the senior lender was owed $17.6 million, Zimco was owed $6.5 million and another $1.3 million was required to complete the project.
In the filing, Davis' attorneys proposed a refinancing deal that would allow Davis to pay off the Park 1055 loan, buy the Zimco loan for $3 million and satisfy all additional project costs. Davis would then issue a new $2 million note to Zimco. Lawyers for Davis said in court filings that if all the units closed May 27, as scheduled, that would reduce the interest paid to New Valley under the refinancing.
According to court documents, Bank of America and the developer's estranged wife, Diane Davis, have filed objections to the refinancing, claiming that the 30 percent interest rate is excessive and that Davis' unsecured creditors will be prejudiced by some aspects of the refinancing motion.
A May 24 hearing is scheduled on the refinancing of the property, court records show.
Davis declined to comment. William Goldman, lawyers for the senior lender, said he had not reviewed the documents yet. Officials at New Valley and Elliman were not immediately available for comment and nor were attorneys for Diane Davis.
hare-brained scheme from the get-go
The aforementioned deal for the penthouse has closed, at $3.85MM vs. a final ask of $4.3MM and an opening price of $9.3MM.
10/05/2009 Listed by 1055 Park Ave at $9,305,200.
10/22/2009 Price decreased by 19% to $7,500,000.
07/01/2010 Price decreased by 19% to $6,100,000.
08/09/2010 Delisted.
08/19/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $6,100,000.
10/12/2010 Listing is no longer available.
10/12/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $4,300,000.
10/12/2010 Prudential Elliman Listing is no longer available.
01/22/2011 Listing entered contract.
05/27/2011 Sale recorded for $3,850,000.
The other ACRIS filing is for #1:
08/19/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $7,500,000.
10/25/2010 Price decreased by 13% to $6,500,000.
05/27/2011 Sale recorded for $5,193,900.
The original price for #1 was clearly higher than $7.5MM, but I don't have access to that listing.
West 81st, feel free to update (Oct '10 listing info) the listing prices to actual below. The Super's apt wasn't in the original price list.
Unit 1 original list 5/09 $ 9.300mm
9/10 $ 7.500
Unit 2 original list 5/09 $ 11.950mm
10/10 $ 7.750
Unit 3 original list 5/09 $ 12.000mm
10/10 $ 8.000
Unit 4 original list 5/09 $ 13.500mm
10/10 $ 8.950
PH original list 5/09 $ 8.250mm
1/10 $ 7.500
3/10 $ 6.100
10/10 $ 4.300
Inception total pricing = $ 55.000mm
Current total pricing = $ 36.500mm
Final analysis of the Original Offering with final sales per SE.
Unit 1 original list 5/2009 $ 9.300mm
9/2010 $ 7.500
Now 12/2010 $ 6.500mm (30% off from original)
SOLD FOR: $5,193,900 ( 44% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $4.1MM.
Unit 2 original list 5/2009 $ 11.950mm
10/2010 $ 7.750
SOLD FOR: $5,931,306 ( 50% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $6.0MM.
Unit 3 original list 5/2009 $ 12.000mm
10/2010 $ 8.000
Now 12/2010 $ 6.750mm (44% off from original)
SOLD FOR: $5,600,375 ( 53% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $6.4MM.
Unit 4 original list 5/2009 $ 13.500mm
10/10 $ 8.950
Now 12/10 $ 7.500mm (44% off from original)
SOLD FOR: $5,376,680 ( 60% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $8.1MM.
PH original list 5/2009 $ 8.250mm
1/10 $ 7.500
3/10 $ 6.100
10/10 $ 4.300
SOLD FOR: $3,850,000 ( 53% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $4.4MM.
Inception total pricing = $ 55.000mm
10/2010 Current total pricing = $ 36.500mm
12/2010 Current total pricing = $ 33.800mm (39% off from original) That's as in "OUCH"
SOLD FOR: $25.952mm ( 53% off from original), a PRICE CHOP of $29MM.
The final sale analysis does not include the Super's apt which appears to have been sold for 500k, which was probably used to settle commissions, etc... The new owners will have to live with a live out super. Oh well, you have the doorman that can get you Broadway show tickets.
The total sales barely covers the debt, so this development has to be a BUST!!
They probably could have made more money just building a traditional townhouse on the lot.
UWSfamily, i agree with you completely! walking past this building, i can see every room (other than bathrooms) on the first couple of floors. living in this building, you are always in public if you dont close the shades. a townhouse in the 80's on park....if they designed it right (aka not glass!) could sell for AT LEAST 35million (just a guess-would depend on the size) and probably wouldn't stay empty for that long.
Per the NYT, this past weekend 01/13/13, wrote the epitaph for this building.
Such battles are headaches for developers. But their decision to go for classic over modern on the Upper East Side is most likely also motivated by not-so-inspiring sales at some glassy condo towers in the area. Apartments at 949 Park Avenue sold for discounts of up to 27 percent below asking prices, and at 1055 Park Avenue, residences closed for 30 percent to 40 percent below asking, according to Streeteasy.com.