IBJNews

Homebuilder Estridge plans return after landing $25M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Paul Estridge Jr. says he is returning to the home-building business after securing $25 million from a private-equity firm in North Carolina.

Carmel-based Estridge Homes LLC will use the capital infusion from Charlotte-based Mountain Real Estate Capital to begin acquiring land and building houses in the Indianapolis area.

The venture’s first project will be Harmony, a 270-acre community in Westfield on Ditch Road between 146th and 156th streets. Estridge said the land has been acquired and construction should start in March.

The builder will offer seven homes styles from 1,400 square feet to 3,600 square feet in Harmony with starting prices ranging from $225,000 to $425,000.

The Estridge family has been building homes in central Indiana since 1967 under various companies started by Paul Estridge Sr., who died in September, and his son, Paul Jr.

Estridge companies have developed as many as 20 communities and built about 8,000 homes over those years, they estimate.

Like many builders, Estridge got in trouble in the recession when the housing market collapsed. Paul Jr. filed Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy in September 2011. He owed a list of creditors that included banks, suppliers and vendors more than $50 million, but had assets of less than $5 million.

Estridge Group had as many as 150 full-time employees in 2004 when it was building more than 300 homes a year as one of the area's largest builders, but it had fewer than 10 at the time of the bankruptcy.

Over the past three years, Mountain, founded in 1993, has invested more than $700 million in similar ventures with private homebuilders in 18 states. The equity firm is capitalized with more than $1 billion.

The deal with Estridge will be Mountain’s first investment in central Indiana. In the last year, Mountain has formed partnerships in Salt Lake City; Milwaukee; Omaha, Neb.; Long Island, N.Y.; and Winchester, Va.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Hmmmm....
    Seems like yet another opportunity to use others for his personal gain without conscience.
  • Old Tricks
    Looks like Estridge is back to his old tricks - if he sold his new 'partners' up the river like his last partners, they should be ready to lose everything they just gave him. And, if he expects to sell houses for $120 to $150 sqft when the market is barely puling $100 - that would be more Estridge smoke.
  • unfair
    Seems really unfair that a guy can run a company into the ground, leave other investors' money hanging with no hope of repayment, file bankruptcy, and then start over with no accountability (wipe hands clean of his bad debt). The American dream for bad businesses!
  • Really?
    Paul Estridge Jr did a outstanding job of linking his company name with his father, a custom builder with a stellar reputation, to sell his overpriced houses. He got what he deserved with chapter 7. I do hope this new venture ends the same way.
  • Good Luck Mountain
    That's a bad investment for Mountain. Does anyone think Paul will re-pay any of the hard working people that didn't get paid from his last escapades? I doubt it.
  • Good for You, Paul!!
    Welcome back and well-wishes to your new venture!

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT