This economic recession has brought little hope for homeowners. Despite numerous government sponsored programs such as HAMP and HAFA, very few borrowers get loan modifications and thus upside-down owners are left facing either short-sale or foreclosure.  But there may be a more effective approach… fighting back.

Part of what created this economic collapse was the willingness of lenders to make loans virtually to anyone without any real checking to see if they could really afford the loan. But with this drop of standards also came a drop in diligence in handling the loan paperwork properly. The reality is that millions of loans are legally defective and, in some cases, may not be collectible.  This has given rise to a new wave of scams by so called “forensic auditors” who, for a large up-front fee,  promise to search the loan documents for defects but more often would take the money and run.  As readers of my Blog know, I’ve opposed such approaches because, even if they found defects in the loan, the legal remedy for Truth in Lending (TILA) violations was rescission: the lender gives you back what you paid but you have to give back the loan proceeds.  This simply didn’t work.  But now, there may be new strategies available through this process that can potentially stop foreclosure, stop judgments, and maybe even force a loan modification.

I recently attended a seminar put on by a Florida company called AmStar which is in the forefront nationally of assisting lawyers in challenging lenders.  The critical issue is not TILA but rather the underlying changes in ownership of the loan and security: 1) Who really owns the loan?  2) Who really can foreclose (it’s not MERS); 3) Do the Loan Agreements conflict with HAMP and HAFA and specific State laws requiring good faith efforts to resolve loan disputes?  Courts throughout the Country are starting to rule that lenders cannot foreclose if their loan documents or handling are defective.  If the lender can’t foreclose, they’ll want to settle and that could mean a principal reduction modification enabling the borrower to keep their home.

Determining whether a borrower’s loan is defective requires several steps: 

First, a Qualified Written Request (QWR) should be sent to the loan servicer to obtain their loan documents and payment and handling history. Recent law changes require a lender to acknowledge receipt of the Request in 5 days and actually send the responsive documents within 30 days (15 day extension possible). 

Second, have the loan documents reviewed by a qualified and certified auditor to determine if defects exist and whether they are minor or fatal to enforcement of the loan.  Beware of “auditors” charging upwards of $5,000 for this service. A good residential home audit will cost approximately $2,000.

Third, if the loan documents and audit results indicate that the loan is not enforceable, then you may have good cause to get a legal injunction to stop a pending foreclosure and possibly even beat the lenders in Court. Of course, most homeowners can’t afford the legal cost of a protracted litigation. But most lenders also don’t want a Court to dig in to the validity of their loan practices. The result is a greatly increased interest in settlement which can be a win-win for everyone, especially for the homeowner that gets to keep their home at an affordable payment rate.

Are these strategies for you?  Every person’s situation is different. The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice.  If you are upside-down on your loan(s), get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options. 

If you have specific questions about your liability in California or about short sales, foreclosure, or any legal issues, feel free to contact us at sjbeede@bpelaw.com.  We offer a $200 flat fee consultation to evaluate your liabilities and strategize a resolution. This can be done in person or by phone. If interested, please call us at 916-966-2260.

One of the most common complaints we hear from upside-down owners is that lenders are non-responsive to their requests for loan modification or short sale. Documents are getting lost, or the lender says they have not been received, or the negotiator has changed, or many other excuses.  All of this has led many frustrated upside-down borrowers to believe that lenders have no intention of helping them despite all of the hype about government programs such as HAMP (Modifications) and HAFA (Short Sales and Deeds in Lieu). While I believe that most lenders are trying but are overwhelmed, there is a very real question of whether OneWest Bank is pushing for foreclosures.  The evidence suggests that it is.

First a little history.  A great many banks are insured by the FDIC, the national program designed to protect depositors’ assets. During the height of the real estate bubble, lenders were giving out loans without really any care for whether the borrower really could pay them back.  When the market crashed starting in 2006, foreclosures skyrocketed, banks lost their source of income and capacity to operate, ie: they “failed”. When a bank fails, FDIC steps in and takes control. This is what happened in 2008 with the collapse of Indymac. But FDIC does not want to run the bank. First they took control then found a buyer: OneWest Bank.  OneWest was created by a handful of very wealthy investors solely to take over Indymac from the FDIC.  What made this an attractive investment was the unique “Shared Loss Agreement” between Indymac and OneWest wherein OneWest purchased Indymac’s loans for between 58-70% of the balance owed but if there was a foreclosure, FDIC would pay 80-95% of the losses on the original balance. It is not rocket science to figure out that under this deal, OneWest could make far more money from a foreclosure than they could from a modification or short sale.  To learn more about this history, read Patrick Pulatie’s blog: http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-government-abetteded-fraud-why-indymaconewest-always-forecloses/

So what does this all mean to you, the upside-down property owner: If you’re dealing with OneWest Bank or Indymac, don’t expect help because it may not be there.  Note also that FDIC has entered these Shared Loss Agreements with over 50 different lenders and servicers, although apparently none are as uncooperative as OneWest. Is there anything you can do to force them?  Possibly. First - write your Congressman for help. It is certainly unlikely that our legislature intended this perverse result when they approved the FDIC operations. This may put on pressure.  Second - use the Courts to get relief. Many States, such as California, require that a lender negotiate in good faith to attempt a resolution before commencing a foreclosure. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the FDIC-OneWest Shared Loss Agreement requires OneWest to “undertake, reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts”.  A judge or jury can decide if OneWest has met their responsibilities. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Faced with a legal challenge or Congressional pressure or both, OneWest may fix your problem to make you go away even if they are unwilling to change their policies.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. If you are upside-down on your loan(s), especially if you’re having problems communicating with OneWest or Indymac, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options. 

If you have specific questions about your liability in California or about short sales, foreclosure, or any legal issues, feel free to contact us at sjbeede@bpelaw.com.  We offer a $200 flat fee consultation to evaluate your liabilities and strategize a resolution. This can be done in person or by phone. If interested, please call us at 916-966-2260.

Everyday we’re meeting with property owners who can’t get a loan modification and are deciding whether to attempt a short sale or just let the property go to foreclosure.  For more than 90%, a short sale is the best solution because it causes less credit damage, provides negotiation of recourse liability (especially important with multiple lenders), and avoids the potential future career damage of having a “foreclosure” on your record. Indeed, having at least attempted a short sale demonstrates a cooperation that may speed up the willingness of future creditors to provide a new loan.  But short sale is not always for everyone.

For the past three years, most people struggling with upside-down loans were those who bought their homes in the early to mid-2000’s with teaser loans such as negative adjustable, or pay-option ARMS which allowed them to qualify for the loans based upon “stated income” and a starting interest rate that virtually guaranteed a loan.  But then, as the teaser rates ended and interest adjusted, borrowers could no longer afford the payments.  For most of these borrowers, short sales work well because they don’t have any substantial assets and, unless they refinanced, they may have no deficiency liability (at least in CA). 

But now the profile of the upside-down owner is changing.  Today’s troubled owner is more likely to have a decent loan but they’ve lost their job or otherwise been impacted by the recession.  These owners may have lots of other assets but they can’t afford to keep paying for the negative cash-flow on the over-encumbered second home or rental property.  In California, these loans generally have deficiency recourse and, if a lender pursued a deficiency judgment, they could reasonably collect some or all of the deficiency from the borrower.  If the borrower attempted a short sale, they would have to disclose their assets as a part of the hardship package and, in doing so, they would be letting the lender know: 1) they have assets to contribute to payoff a short sale deficiency; and 2) if the short sale fails, they would be a good candidate for a “judicial foreclosure” which would allow a lender to get a deficiency judgment.  Even though that process could take over 2 years, the collectability could make it worthwhile for the lender to pursue.

Faced with this reality, it can be better for an otherwise solvent borrower to let the property go to foreclosure and, by not disclosing assets, have a better chance of avoiding the liability. In California, most lenders will foreclose through “non-judicial foreclosure” (also called Trustee Sale) because it is both cheap and fast but they give up any right to deficiency judgment.  Without knowledge that a borrower has other assets, the lender is most likely to take this path instead of the long, expensive, and generally non-productive judicial foreclosure route.  So, strategically, for the solvent but upside-down borrower, it may be better to walk away than short sale.

Of course, everyone’s situation is unique and there is no single best solution. The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Determining what to do involves consideration of judgment risk, tax factors, and credit and career impacts as well as the type of property and number of loans involved.  If you are considering default on your loans, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options. 

If you have specific questions about your liability in California or about short sales, foreclosure, or any legal issues, feel free to contact us at sjbeede@bpelaw.com.  We offer a $200 flat fee consultation to evaluate your liabilities and strategize a resolution. This can be done in person or by phone. If interested, please call us at 916-966-2260.