Default Filed on Thrift’s Joint Venture Loans : Finance: Two banks give notice on $7.5 million for real estate projects by Fullerton Savings and a developer.

Two banks have filed default notices on loans totaling $7.5 million for real estate projects developed by joint ventures of Fullerton Savings & Loan Assn., the company confirmed Tuesday.

New York-based Citicorp filed a notice of default against Richfield Associates on March 3 for failure to make $4.2 million in payments on a loan that was used to build several industrial buildings in the Mira Loma business park in Placentia.

Richfield Associates is a joint venture between Fullerton Savings and developer Bristol Street Associates in Newport Beach.

Los Angeles-based Union Bank also issued a default notice against another joint venture between the same partners called Technology Associates. In that deal, Fullerton Savings and Richfield Associates are delinquent on $2.4 million in payments on a loan that was used to build a 42,000-square-foot office building in the Irvine Spectrum business park. Neither of the building projects have tenants. The joint ventures stopped making payments in January.

Carl W. Gregory, chairman of Fullerton Savings, said the thrift acknowledges that it is in default and had written off the properties during 1992 because it was unable to sell them in a depressed commercial real estate market. The buildings have lost about 30% of their value since they were built.

Under federal thrift regulations that went into effect in 1989, Fullerton Savings was required to sell off its real estate holdings. The sale has not proceeded as anticipated, so the thrift decided to allow the properties to slip into default.

Steve Knutzen, senior vice president at Fullerton S&L;, said it is still possible that the joint ventures can sell the properties before foreclosure proceedings begin. Despite default notices, he said the lenders are willing to negotiate with the joint venture companies if buyers are found.

At the end of 1991, the thrift reported a loss of $1.4 million, or $1.61 a share, contrasted with net income of $2.8 million, or $3.34 a share a year earlier. Figures for 1992 haven’t been released yet.

Assets at the end of 1991 were $334.7 million, compared with $337.5 million a year earlier.