Real Life Deal Stories

Aztec Storage (1700 Curry), Tempe:  This is an example of pure stubbornness; both on the part of the owner and on our part also. He refused to give in and we refused to give up. The property was listed four separate times. The first was with another broker. The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th were with us; for $1,750,000 in 2008, $1,275,000 in 2010 and $980,000 in late 2011.  We procured 10 offers during the combined terms of our listings; the highest for $1.5M, which in hindsight, the seller should have accepted. As time passed, both the market and the property continued to deteriorate. Try as we did, we could not persuade the owner to accept an offer until he finally did for $920,000.

Villa de Paz Mini Storage, Glendale:  This was an unusual sale in that it was relatively smooth and uneventful.  The seller is a repeat client with whom we have closed multiple transactions; both as a buyer and as a seller.  He has several properties in the Phoenix area and some out of state. He listed this property with us for $1,985,000. We quickly received 4 offers for the property. Although it is rare for us, it took 2 escrows to close the sale. We always hate to see escrows cancelled but this one worked out well for the seller because the property ultimately sold for a higher price.  The seller was so pleased with the outcome of this transaction that he listed another of his properties with us.

Ahwatukee Self Storage:  This was a short sale with the selling entity in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Because of our relationship with the property owner, she petitioned the bankruptcy court to appoint us as the listing broker. We made a presentation to the court and were given the exclusive listing. We procured 5 all-cash ranging from $1.3MM to $1,620,000. After a best-and-final process the highest offer was selected. From that point it took more than six months to get the deal closed. During that time not only did we have to maintain the buyer’s interest, but we had to work with two attorneys, a lender, a loan servicer, the seller and the court. This was a very difficult deal that could have fallen apart at any one of several critical points.

Two Lock It Lockers: This was a 2-property portfolio with locations in Phoenix and Tempe. The owner would not sign an exclusive listing because he had relationships with two brokers and did not want to anger either one. we were one of those brokers and the other shall remain un-named. We generally do not work on that basis. The other broker brought two offers (both from clients we know very well and clients we knew were not a good match for those properties). An escrow was opened with one of them (before the buyer saw the properties). That escrow failed to close. Approximately a year later we met a buyer asking for properties of this age. He wrote an offer after seeing the properties. The offer was accepted and we closed 60 days later for all cash.

Tempe Storage Company: This is a similar story to above. This owner requested listing proposals from 3 brokers, all with some storage experience. w was one of those brokers and the other two were large national brokerage firms. We did not get the listing because our price was the lowest and most accurate. One of the others got the listing for $5.6MM and the property did not sell. Two years later it was taken over by the lender (a private party). The private party demanded a certain price, which was too far above market value. Approximately a year later we met a buyer asking for a property of this quality. He wrote an offer after seeing the property. The offer was accepted and we closed 60 days later for all cash.
 
Both of the sellers in the accounts above received substantially less for their properties than had they signed exclusive listings with us when first given the opportunity.

Two properties on Tuttle Avenue in Tucson: These were two small properties (9,700 sq. ft. and 28,000 sq. ft.) that were owned by two completely un-related sellers. Each seller signed exclusive listings with us that contained specific language as to how sales proceeds would be shared between them at closing. We marketed the properties together using the combined income from both properties and expenses based on consolidating the operation under single management. We received several offers. We selected the best offer among the several received. We opened escrow and closed escrow about 90 days later. Both of these sellers received more for their property by utilizing our creative approach than they would have by selling separately.