Flatiron Building buyer who failed to pay up still wants to keep it
The mysterious 31-year-old who won the iconic Flatiron Building at auction in March doesn’t appear to have the money for it, yet is trying to retain the property.
After becoming the triangular skyscraper’s highest bidder last month, then missing a vital payment deadline, Jacob Garlick — a managing partner at growth equity venture fund Abraham Trust — has expressed that he’d like to redeem himself and hold onto the Fifth Avenue steel-frame, the Real Deal reported.
Only no one believes him.
The ongoing saga of the Flatiron Building began with its now-former owners who, after failing to come to an agreement on what to do with the pricey piece of real estate, were forced to put the 121-year-old edifice up for a court-ordered auction.
Garlick placed the winning $190 million bid in the dramatic bidding war that ensued, sending the real estate world into a tizzy over the deep-pocketed newcomer and surprise victor.
But then, it became apparent that Garlick couldn’t actually afford the eye-watering sum he’d proposed when he failed to pay a $19 million deposit.
This gave the former owners, as the Flatiron’s most recent deed-holders, the option to purchase the building for just under $190 million — but three said they’d pass, making it seem likely 175 Fifth Ave. would head back to the auction block.
Now, though, Garlick is reportedly scrambling to prove he’s good for the money, according to the Real Deal.
“Why would you take anything he is saying seriously?” said longtime building stakeholder Jeffrey Gural, of GFP Real Estate, the outlet reported, adding that he believes Garlick’s bid shouldn’t be considered unless he wires the entire $190 million into an escrow account.
Gural immediately smelled something fishy about the real-estate newcomer, as moments after winning the Flatiron on the New York County Courthouse’s steps, Garlick asked him if he wanted to partner up on the deal.
Later, Garlick offered Gural a 10% stake in the building — which is currently vacant — in exchange for putting up his $19 million deposit.
“It was such a ridiculous proposal,” said Gural. “It concerned me. It was a red flag that he didn’t have the money.”
