RE: 1960 S Maple
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:36 AM
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Mr. Beal,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your email; I have been out of town and out of
communication for the past week or so. We are more than happy to review an offer from
you with proof of the financial means to close. I know you don’t believe that the property
has as much value as we believe it does; however, the market shows that the land (not the
buildings) is worth significant value. We have had a cash offer of $180k, but I believe it is
worth more than $250k. We would seriously consider any offer of more than $200k.
Alternatively, we can have an appraisal of the property completed (acceptable to both
parties) and we would give you a discount of up to 10% of that value for the purchase of the
property.
Also, as far as I know, you still have equipment in the shop building. We do not want to see
you lose this equipment. Please remove the equipment before it is stolen or we are forced
to have it removed. If it is useless equipment, please let us know and we will have it
disposed of.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to receiving your offer.
Doug Gale
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:36 AM
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Mr. Beal,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your email; I have been out of town and out of
communication for the past week or so. We are more than happy to review an offer from
you with proof of the financial means to close. I know you don’t believe that the property
has as much value as we believe it does; however, the market shows that the land (not the
buildings) is worth significant value. We have had a cash offer of $180k, but I believe it is
worth more than $250k. We would seriously consider any offer of more than $200k.
Alternatively, we can have an appraisal of the property completed (acceptable to both
parties) and we would give you a discount of up to 10% of that value for the purchase of the
property.
Also, as far as I know, you still have equipment in the shop building. We do not want to see
you lose this equipment. Please remove the equipment before it is stolen or we are forced
to have it removed. If it is useless equipment, please let us know and we will have it
disposed of.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to receiving your offer.
Doug Gale
From: Peter Beal [mailto:beal_peter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:04 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: 1960 S Maple
To: Doug Gale
From: Peter Beal
Re: 1960 S Maple
D,
Looks like the legal dispute is over and resolved in your favor.
Once 1960 has been on the market, whatever you find the value to be, I would be
interested in perhaps matching it, with a premium to make my offer more attractive.
Although I have the means beyond what you’ve been aware of to make this
possible, I can’t just throw money at the problem. In the end, the price, plus
essential improvements, has to make sense since it’ll eventually tie in to a bank
loan, and the bank will be looking at the real market value in making its decisions.
$50,000 for the property as is, is a settlement figure you’ve already rejected more
than once, but I mention again it anyway.
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:04 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: 1960 S Maple
To: Doug Gale
From: Peter Beal
Re: 1960 S Maple
D,
Looks like the legal dispute is over and resolved in your favor.
Once 1960 has been on the market, whatever you find the value to be, I would be
interested in perhaps matching it, with a premium to make my offer more attractive.
Although I have the means beyond what you’ve been aware of to make this
possible, I can’t just throw money at the problem. In the end, the price, plus
essential improvements, has to make sense since it’ll eventually tie in to a bank
loan, and the bank will be looking at the real market value in making its decisions.
$50,000 for the property as is, is a settlement figure you’ve already rejected more
than once, but I mention again it anyway.
From: Peter Beal [mailto:beal_peter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:11 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
D,
I would suggest you take the 180K offer and be satisfied. I presume that's after
the work's done in order to get a C.O.
P Beal
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:11 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
D,
I would suggest you take the 180K offer and be satisfied. I presume that's after
the work's done in order to get a C.O.
P Beal
RE: 1960 S Maple
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:44 PM
To: 'Peter Beal'
Peter,
Does this mean that you are not interested in re-purchasing the property?
Doug
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:44 PM
To: 'Peter Beal'
Peter,
Does this mean that you are not interested in re-purchasing the property?
Doug
From: Peter Beal [mailto:beal_peter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:03 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Certainly I am, but not until the market has established it's value...otherwise you
ought to take your best offer to date, unless you think I will better it.
180K, if that's what you've been offered for the property as is, I'm not willing to pay.
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:03 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Certainly I am, but not until the market has established it's value...otherwise you
ought to take your best offer to date, unless you think I will better it.
180K, if that's what you've been offered for the property as is, I'm not willing to pay.
RE: 1960 S Maple
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Peter,
It does not make sense to me that you state that you are willing to pay the market
value, but not willing to pay the prices of the offers we have received. If we are
receiving offers of $180k and up, then those establish the market price. You may
not agree with it and you may not like it, but that is in fact the market price. Truly,
the market price is likely higher because we haven’t fully marketed the property.
This offer only came through a contact of one of our agents and is from a bargain
hunter.
If you are unwilling to purchase the property at the market price, then kindly
remove your signage and website comments that accuse us of not allowing you to
repurchase the property.
You did not mention anything about the equipment left in the shop, so I must
assume that it is trash. Please let me know immediately if this is not correct and
you intend to remove it.
Doug
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Peter,
It does not make sense to me that you state that you are willing to pay the market
value, but not willing to pay the prices of the offers we have received. If we are
receiving offers of $180k and up, then those establish the market price. You may
not agree with it and you may not like it, but that is in fact the market price. Truly,
the market price is likely higher because we haven’t fully marketed the property.
This offer only came through a contact of one of our agents and is from a bargain
hunter.
If you are unwilling to purchase the property at the market price, then kindly
remove your signage and website comments that accuse us of not allowing you to
repurchase the property.
You did not mention anything about the equipment left in the shop, so I must
assume that it is trash. Please let me know immediately if this is not correct and
you intend to remove it.
Doug
From: Peter Beal [mailto:beal_peter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:57 AM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Doug,
Perhaps we are working at cross purposes...
If I use data from the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors I do get 177K as a likely market
value, but the following would be things (at a minimum) a buyer would expect fixed,
completed, installed or a concession for:
-engineered septic system
-heating system (there is none in place)
-replacement of all roofs
-repairs to approx 1/3 of windows
-completion of first floor finish work
-completion of, and code upgrades for, electrical system
-water heater
-there is no kitchen by current standards
-completion of bathrooms
After all these are taken into account, the figure will be well below 100K.
I can't say what market conditions have done to 1960's salability.
As for the equipment, the bulk has been removed. I continue to remove as much as
possible every day and will carry on till completed.
PB
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:57 AM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Doug,
Perhaps we are working at cross purposes...
If I use data from the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors I do get 177K as a likely market
value, but the following would be things (at a minimum) a buyer would expect fixed,
completed, installed or a concession for:
-engineered septic system
-heating system (there is none in place)
-replacement of all roofs
-repairs to approx 1/3 of windows
-completion of first floor finish work
-completion of, and code upgrades for, electrical system
-water heater
-there is no kitchen by current standards
-completion of bathrooms
After all these are taken into account, the figure will be well below 100K.
I can't say what market conditions have done to 1960's salability.
As for the equipment, the bulk has been removed. I continue to remove as much as
possible every day and will carry on till completed.
PB
RE: 1960 S Maple
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:53 PM
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Peter,
The valuation of a property must be based upon its highest and best use. In this
case, renovating the existing structures is not the highest and best use. Ideally,
commercial use is its best use, but may not be feasible because of government
constraints. The next best use of the property would be to tear down the existing
structures and make it a small estate property. The value is in the land, not the
existing structures. In the case that someone wanted to create such an estate,
he/she would put in the engineered sewage field, put up a privacy fence, and build a
new home and garage (probably 3,500 – 5,000 sq. ft.). Such a structure would be
more proportionate to the value of the land (generally, land is worth 20% of the
overall property value).
Therefore, your expenses related to the renovations of the existing structures do not
enter into the equation. It truly must be valued currently as a vacant parcel with a 10-
20 year future as a commercial parcel.
See listings:
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1072449684
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1072449682
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1075961486
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1072449685
Commercial Land:
http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdetail.aspx?
ctid=2710&ml=3&typ=20&ofbm=2&sid=375130e91bc942d596993bc05846db60&pg=
12&lsn=117
Doug
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:53 PM
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Peter,
The valuation of a property must be based upon its highest and best use. In this
case, renovating the existing structures is not the highest and best use. Ideally,
commercial use is its best use, but may not be feasible because of government
constraints. The next best use of the property would be to tear down the existing
structures and make it a small estate property. The value is in the land, not the
existing structures. In the case that someone wanted to create such an estate,
he/she would put in the engineered sewage field, put up a privacy fence, and build a
new home and garage (probably 3,500 – 5,000 sq. ft.). Such a structure would be
more proportionate to the value of the land (generally, land is worth 20% of the
overall property value).
Therefore, your expenses related to the renovations of the existing structures do not
enter into the equation. It truly must be valued currently as a vacant parcel with a 10-
20 year future as a commercial parcel.
See listings:
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1072449684
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1072449682
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1075961486
http://homes.realtor.com/prop/1072449685
Commercial Land:
http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdetail.aspx?
ctid=2710&ml=3&typ=20&ofbm=2&sid=375130e91bc942d596993bc05846db60&pg=
12&lsn=117
Doug
From: Peter Beal [mailto:beal_peter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:42 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Doug,
I am personally familiar with all the comps you listed since I have clientele in their
areas or go by them regularly. I can't fault your logic if your comps were valid, but they
are all far better serviced, desirably located and hence much more valuable than
1960. There is a universe of real-estate difference between N. Maple across the
Fostor Rd bridge - which I cross every day - and 1960 S Maple. Or even between
1960 and 1744 S Maple which is the last S Maple Rd address in the city of Ann Arbor
proper.
The commercial potential of 1960 simply isn't, except in a future date so distant and
uncertain as to be pie-in-the sky for all practical matters.
You need to have someone trustworthy locally to fill you in or you will end up getting
stuck with a loser for having such high hopes of it.
Anyway, I am not interested in very long term potential commercial property if that is
how you will insist on marketing it.
I will make you a concrete offer, but it will be for the real condition and real-time
usefulness to me of 1960 in today's market. If it doesn't do anything for you, then you
always can try to find another buyer. And if the offer has some appeal, but needs
support, you can always additionally test it with an appraisal.
PB
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:42 PM
To: dgale@reo-america.com
Cc: Scott Munzel
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Doug,
I am personally familiar with all the comps you listed since I have clientele in their
areas or go by them regularly. I can't fault your logic if your comps were valid, but they
are all far better serviced, desirably located and hence much more valuable than
1960. There is a universe of real-estate difference between N. Maple across the
Fostor Rd bridge - which I cross every day - and 1960 S Maple. Or even between
1960 and 1744 S Maple which is the last S Maple Rd address in the city of Ann Arbor
proper.
The commercial potential of 1960 simply isn't, except in a future date so distant and
uncertain as to be pie-in-the sky for all practical matters.
You need to have someone trustworthy locally to fill you in or you will end up getting
stuck with a loser for having such high hopes of it.
Anyway, I am not interested in very long term potential commercial property if that is
how you will insist on marketing it.
I will make you a concrete offer, but it will be for the real condition and real-time
usefulness to me of 1960 in today's market. If it doesn't do anything for you, then you
always can try to find another buyer. And if the offer has some appeal, but needs
support, you can always additionally test it with an appraisal.
PB
From: Douglas Gale - wk
To: 'Peter Beal'
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: 1960 S Maple
Peter,
Feel free to present your offer. BTW, we do have local professionals advising us on
the valuation.
Doug
To: 'Peter Beal'
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: 1960 S Maple
Peter,
Feel free to present your offer. BTW, we do have local professionals advising us on
the valuation.
Doug
From: Peter Beal [mailto:beal_peter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Doug Gale
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Doug,
In your Observer article quotes you repeat that you don't believe I have the money
available to buy back 1960. The funds have actually always been available but my
backers, who expect to be reimbursed when the property is re-financed by a bank
loan, cannot agree with your valuation and have discouraged me from trying to move
ahead with any kind of negotiation.
I told you I would make an offer but everyone here keeps reminding me that it is
pointless if we're not going to be talking numbers that 1960, in it's peculiar situation,
and the Ann Arbor market, will support.
Are you agreeable to splitting the cost of an appraisal? If not, I would like to have one
done for myself.
PB
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Doug Gale
Subject: Re: 1960 S Maple
Doug,
In your Observer article quotes you repeat that you don't believe I have the money
available to buy back 1960. The funds have actually always been available but my
backers, who expect to be reimbursed when the property is re-financed by a bank
loan, cannot agree with your valuation and have discouraged me from trying to move
ahead with any kind of negotiation.
I told you I would make an offer but everyone here keeps reminding me that it is
pointless if we're not going to be talking numbers that 1960, in it's peculiar situation,
and the Ann Arbor market, will support.
Are you agreeable to splitting the cost of an appraisal? If not, I would like to have one
done for myself.
PB
RE: 1960 S Maple
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Peter,
I appreciate your tenacity. As you know, the house at 1960 is not livable in its current
condition based upon the construction codes in that area. Even if you were to buy the
home, you would be faced with costs of reconstruction, the headache of reconstruction,
new taxes, etc. Furthermore, what would prevent the IRS from seizing the home once
you bought it? Through the article and from my experiences with you, it does not seem
to be within your nature to balance all of those variables. It sounds as if you have a
good living and working situation going for you right now. Are not your energies put to
their best use by continuing to improve your current situation instead of pursuing this
dream that is probably not feasible?
Doug
Douglas Gale - wk [dgale@reo-america.com]
To: 'Peter Beal'
cc: 'Scott Munzel'; tcone@reo-america.com; 'Ken Frantz'
Peter,
I appreciate your tenacity. As you know, the house at 1960 is not livable in its current
condition based upon the construction codes in that area. Even if you were to buy the
home, you would be faced with costs of reconstruction, the headache of reconstruction,
new taxes, etc. Furthermore, what would prevent the IRS from seizing the home once
you bought it? Through the article and from my experiences with you, it does not seem
to be within your nature to balance all of those variables. It sounds as if you have a
good living and working situation going for you right now. Are not your energies put to
their best use by continuing to improve your current situation instead of pursuing this
dream that is probably not feasible?
Doug
Re: 1960 S Maple
From: Peter Beal [beal_peter@yahoo.com]
to: dgale@reo-america.com
Doug,
Whether I can make it work or not is irrelevant to making a deal. For all you or I know,
you could sell the place to me, I'll lose it again, and you'll be able to double dip. The
only question to answer is whether it makes sense to sell it as a residence now, or
have to hold it indefinitely until it may get city services and be developable.
I have checked with H. Leon Moore (moorel@washtenaw.org), the Environmental
Health Supervisor, regarding how the sale of 1960 would be handled considering there
is a residence on the lot. The simple answers are that it would have to have a septic
field installed (for the existing house) or a commitment made to demolish the
building(s). As an empty building lot he said it would have to meet all new building
standards and, since it has no draining soil or native slope, that no permit would be
issued for a septic system. It would become an unbuildable lot. This confirms what I had
originally thought.
PB
From: Peter Beal [beal_peter@yahoo.com]
to: dgale@reo-america.com
Doug,
Whether I can make it work or not is irrelevant to making a deal. For all you or I know,
you could sell the place to me, I'll lose it again, and you'll be able to double dip. The
only question to answer is whether it makes sense to sell it as a residence now, or
have to hold it indefinitely until it may get city services and be developable.
I have checked with H. Leon Moore (moorel@washtenaw.org), the Environmental
Health Supervisor, regarding how the sale of 1960 would be handled considering there
is a residence on the lot. The simple answers are that it would have to have a septic
field installed (for the existing house) or a commitment made to demolish the
building(s). As an empty building lot he said it would have to meet all new building
standards and, since it has no draining soil or native slope, that no permit would be
issued for a septic system. It would become an unbuildable lot. This confirms what I had
originally thought.
PB
This exchange of e-mails followed the Michigan
Supreme Court's decision not to hear my case.
These illustrate clearly Doug Gale's willingness to say
anything, misrepresent the situation in any manner, and
outright lie if he believed it would get him the deal he
wanted.
Gale probably holds to the adage that 'all's fair in love and
war (and business)' and that would make it equally fair to
reveal his tactics and thinking.
Highlighted text links to content relevant notes.
The e-mails are arranged in ascending chronological order.
Supreme Court's decision not to hear my case.
These illustrate clearly Doug Gale's willingness to say
anything, misrepresent the situation in any manner, and
outright lie if he believed it would get him the deal he
wanted.
Gale probably holds to the adage that 'all's fair in love and
war (and business)' and that would make it equally fair to
reveal his tactics and thinking.
Highlighted text links to content relevant notes.
The e-mails are arranged in ascending chronological order.
Consider carefully the dates and
times of these e-mails. Do they
reflect the confidence and poise
of businessman who was certain
he could get $180,000 for a
property acquired for only $6,100?
times of these e-mails. Do they
reflect the confidence and poise
of businessman who was certain
he could get $180,000 for a
property acquired for only $6,100?
If he has a buyer at $180,000,
why should he be wasting his
time trying to convince me
that it is worth that much?
The mention of the equipment
I had had to leave behind is
pro forma but also a sly way to
put a little additional pressure
on.
why should he be wasting his
time trying to convince me
that it is worth that much?
The mention of the equipment
I had had to leave behind is
pro forma but also a sly way to
put a little additional pressure
on.
Here is how "their local
professional" handled his
stewardship of 1960 S Maple and
his relations with myself.
professional" handled his
stewardship of 1960 S Maple and
his relations with myself.
Here is the Ann Arbor News ad that
ran from approx 12-16 to 12-26-07, five
months later. This is an ad of a
frustrated seller; they had no offers
they found acceptable. Another
testament to their real estate acumen.
The phone number is for REO
America., Doug Gale's company.
"Possibly Commercial" is ludicrously
optimistic
ran from approx 12-16 to 12-26-07, five
months later. This is an ad of a
frustrated seller; they had no offers
they found acceptable. Another
testament to their real estate acumen.
The phone number is for REO
America., Doug Gale's company.
"Possibly Commercial" is ludicrously
optimistic
Last revised 04-24-09
All blue highlighted text links to
additional notes and information
All blue highlighted text links to
additional notes and information
"Just because something is
legal, doesn't mean it's
right..."
legal, doesn't mean it's
right..."
Here is why...
For a brief
summary
go to this
link...
In virtually all instances
Doug Gale has insisted that I
should pay what he
maintained was "the market
price" for 1960, all of which
were extortionately inflated.
IF NOT AN EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO
DEAL WITH ME, THEN IT CERTAINLY
CONSTITUTES A FUNCTIONAL
REFUSAL TO ALLOW ME TO
REPURCHASE 1960.
The final sale at $80,000 to
Donald E. Reiff only proves
the point...
Doug Gale has insisted that I
should pay what he
maintained was "the market
price" for 1960, all of which
were extortionately inflated.
IF NOT AN EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO
DEAL WITH ME, THEN IT CERTAINLY
CONSTITUTES A FUNCTIONAL
REFUSAL TO ALLOW ME TO
REPURCHASE 1960.
The final sale at $80,000 to
Donald E. Reiff only proves
the point...
Interesting that here
Gale maintains the
house is "unlivable"
and a "headache of
reconstruction" while
in the e-mail of July
13th, it was "worth
more than 250K."
Then he finally sells it
for $80K?
Gale maintains the
house is "unlivable"
and a "headache of
reconstruction" while
in the e-mail of July
13th, it was "worth
more than 250K."
Then he finally sells it
for $80K?