| Author |
Message |
| tracker |
 Posted: Sat, Mar 17 2007, 10:35 am EDT Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,395,000 (reduced) |
|
| Price reduced to $1,395,000 (Open House 3/18/2007). |
|
 |
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Mar 2 2007, 10:36 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,425,000 (reduced) |
|
| Guest wrote: | How about 6 Applegate Court?
"Large Custom Home to be built on 26 Acres! Home will feature a LR DR FR Library Study/5th BR Kitchen Conservatory Sun Porch Playroom Game Rm Loft/BR Huge Master Suite and more! Lot also for sale without home. Owner is a NJ licensed Real EstateAgent."
Is it owned by Rich Abrams as well? |
Yes. It is directly next door to his curent residence, which is also for sale. He plans to keep one of them or develop of this lot, but is playing the field to see which one he can sell... This lot has substantial restrictions on what can be built. Despite the acerage -- which is basically the corner field that starts at Ancil Davison and Cranbury Neck and continues to the lot on Applegate Court -- the usable part of the lot for the residence can only be 1 acre directly on Applegate Court. The rest can only be used for farmland. So realistically the owner needs to rent it to a farmer and hope to breakeven on the extra taxes... Still, if someone is looking to build their own home, this is an interesting choice and the rear of the house will always have a fantastic open view of farmland. |
|
|
| guest69 |
| Posted: Fri, Mar 2 2007, 9:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,425,000 (reduced) |
|
| yes it is |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Mar 2 2007, 11:47 am EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,425,000 (reduced) |
|
How about 6 Applegate Court?
"Large Custom Home to be built on 26 Acres! Home will feature a LR DR FR Library Study/5th BR Kitchen Conservatory Sun Porch Playroom Game Rm Loft/BR Huge Master Suite and more! Lot also for sale without home. Owner is a NJ licensed Real EstateAgent."
Is it owned by Rich Abrams as well? |
|
|
| tracker |
| Posted: Sat, Feb 10 2007, 12:31 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,425,000 (reduced) |
|
| Price reduced to $1,425,000. |
|
|
| stock guru |
| Posted: Thu, Feb 1 2007, 10:20 am EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| Chime in my two cents. I think the climate for making a nice profit in real estate is getting cold. Just look at the number of investment properties on the market and how the US stock market is doing, not to mention foreign stock markets. Investors will park their money where they think can make the best return. Now, the real estate market does not offer such prospects. |
|
|
| guest29 |
| Posted: Wed, Jan 31 2007, 1:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| tracker wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | tracker wrote: | | The address is 28 Shady Brook Lane, right next to the '30 Shady Brook Lane' for sale and the same price as well. |
Abrams owned both and put the second for sale as soon as he had the first under contract. I think the one he just put up may have had renters at one point. |
So he is selling THREE 1.5 million homes in Cranbury?!
There must be special reasons for doing so. |
special reasons would be: real estate is a business, and its always for sale if the price is right - most people in the business put them up for sale and for rent at the same time, whichever comes first, doesnt matter as long as its not empty |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue, Jan 30 2007, 11:04 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| tracker wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | tracker wrote: | | The address is 28 Shady Brook Lane, right next to the '30 Shady Brook Lane' for sale and the same price as well. |
Abrams owned both and put the second for sale as soon as he had the first under contract. I think the one he just put up may have had renters at one point. |
So he is selling THREE 1.5 million homes in Cranbury?!
There must be special reasons for doing so. |
He's sold one (not closed yet) and yes, he has two on the market. My guess is he only plans to sell one and use the other but is seeing which one the market reacts to first... |
|
|
| tracker |
| Posted: Tue, Jan 30 2007, 7:51 am EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| Guest wrote: | | tracker wrote: | | The address is 28 Shady Brook Lane, right next to the '30 Shady Brook Lane' for sale and the same price as well. |
Abrams owned both and put the second for sale as soon as he had the first under contract. I think the one he just put up may have had renters at one point. |
So he is selling THREE 1.5 million homes in Cranbury?!
There must be special reasons for doing so. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue, Jan 30 2007, 12:57 am EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| tracker wrote: | | The address is 28 Shady Brook Lane, right next to the '30 Shady Brook Lane' for sale and the same price as well. |
Abrams owned both and put the second for sale as soon as he had the first under contract. I think the one he just put up may have had renters at one point. |
|
|
| tracker |
| Posted: Mon, Jan 29 2007, 3:21 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| The address is 28 Shady Brook Lane, right next to the '30 Shady Brook Lane' for sale and the same price as well. |
|
|
| guest29 |
| Posted: Tue, Jan 23 2007, 5:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| yes, nothing is illegal if you dont get caught - so you'd have to setup the big lie... all your records should match; W2's, 1099's, bank accounts etc, - and during the 2 years you would pay ins, property taxes, utilities, maintenance and mortgage on an empty house (if your not renting it) and only be able to deduct interest on your mortgage as well as property tax; its quite a gamble on a million plus loan with 20k in yearly property tax |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue, Jan 23 2007, 4:02 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
Consider a new house that I bought two years ago.
I make the house my primary residence (paying property tax, utility bills, etc.). (My secret: I live with my friend most of the time.) I do go back to my house from time to time to check it, and I hire people to take care of the lawn. Also, I don't rent the house out.
There is no way for the IRS to deny that the house is not my primary residence. |
|
|
| guest29 |
|
|
| guest29 |
| Posted: Tue, Jan 23 2007, 12:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| the house has to be your primary residence for 2 of the past 5 years in order to qualify for exclusion on most capital gains tax - investment properties dont qualify |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Jan 22 2007, 9:26 pm EST Post subject: Re: Woods at Cranbury for $1,495,000 (reduced) |
|
| Guest wrote: | | It seems these investment properties come on the market after two years from the purchase date. Is this done to take the tax benefit? |
Exactly. 2 years is the magic number for the IRS... |
|
|