ILNews

Brandeis home sells for nearly $2 million less than list price

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Louisville home where the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis spent his childhood has been sold at auction and appears likely to continue to be used as medical offices.

More than 25 individuals attended the auction on April 24 inside the home at 310 E. Broadway in Louisville. The auction lasted about 40 minutes with 10 registered bidders participating.

SVN Auction Services handled the sale of the property.

“It will be a cherished treasure in downtown Louisville for years to come,” said Bill Menish, senior advisor at SVN.  

Although the property had attracted a lot of interest, the final selling price was $880,000, substantially lower than the listed price of $2.85 million. However, Menish attributed the lower figure to the glut of office space currently in the Louisville market.

The house has not been used as a home for several decades. After the Brandeis family moved out of the house, a German social group eventually bought the property and built a gymnasium connected to the back of the building. Since the 1980s, the house has contained doctors’ offices and a medical laboratory.

Menish did not identify the buyer but said the building, which is near the University of Louisville medical campus, will remain physicians’ offices.

The sale is expected to close in the next couple of weeks.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT