Archive for August, 2011

As most of you know who follow my Blogs already know, last January the California Legislature passed SB931 which barred first lenders that consent to short sales from having any deficiency recourse against the borrowers. However, they quickly learned that it is junior lenders (seconds, HELOCS, etc.) that control the success of short sales. So on July 15th, the Legislature passed SB458 imposing the same recourse bar on junior lenders plus they barred any lender from requiring a money contribution from the sellers. These law changes created and then amended California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580e.

Reaction to SB458 was immediate. Proponents claimed it a victory for upside down homeowners while we and many Realtors thought it would be a disaster and kill further short sales. Indeed many short sales quickly died and pressure started mounting to undo the damage. But there wasn’t much data to go on as to its actual overall effects. So last week I sent out a Survey amongst our clients and contacts asking for input on what they were actually experiencing in their short sale deals. The responses were clarifying. Of those whose short sales were impacted, just over 50% said it hurt while just under 50% said it helped. Most responders were unclear on what the impact would be. I contacted representatives of the California Association of Realtors and learned that they had been polling hotline calls from their Members statewide. CAR found the numbers more positive than negative but again, like us, too little actual numbers to give a clear picture.

The conclusion at this point is that there is still a lot of uncertainty in the market, particularly amongst lenders trying to understand and respond to SB458. However, here are the main benefits we see emerging:

1. SB458 forces junior lenders to evaluate right now whether or not they could collect from a borrower if they waited for the first lender to foreclose and then sued as a sold-out junior lienholder. Prior to SB458, the junior lender could get some money in the short sale while holding out for recourse on the balance. They could then wait this out for several years and hope the borrower gets solvent. Not any more. Clearly this makes the borrower’s hardship application and particularly their net worth statement even more important in the decision making process;

2. SB458 appears to have brought an additional liability protection for borrowers who agreed to a prior short sale with deficiency recourse. The first Paragraph of the new short sale law begins: “No deficiency shall be owed or collected, and no deficiency judgment shall be requested or rendered…..” Nothing in SB458 states that it only applies to short sales after July 15th.

No doubt there will be a lot more debate and analysis and litigation concerning SB458 and its impacts. As with any law, it will be subject to judicial review in the courts and further change, expansion, and clarification by the Legislature. But for now, CCP580e is the law of the State of California.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. If you have specific questions about dealing with upside down loans or real estate, be sure to contact a real estate attorney in your State. We provide advice worldwide concerning California property.

If you have further questions about SB458, need assistance convincing junior lenders to consent to a short sale, or are facing collection actions by any lender, please feel free to contact us for knowledgeable advice and experienced guidance. You can reach us by calling our office at (916) 966-2260 or you can e-mail me directly at sjbeede@bpelaw.com.

One of the key issues we always examine with consulting with upside-down sellers is the impact of a short sale or a foreclosure on their credit.  While not as damaging as the risk of a deficiency judgment or debt forgiveness tax, credit damage impacts both the capacity to get another loan and can often adversely impact a borrower’s job and career.  To get  greater clarity on the credit impacts, I contacted Jeff Sipes at Blue Water Credit (www.bluewatercredit.com) which helps people restore their credit standing.  Here’s what Jeff provided:

————

By Jeff Sipes, Blue Water Credit:  I am often asked what the impact of a short sale or foreclosure is on a credit score.  Unfortunately, there is no straight-forward answer. This is such a difficult question to answer simply because it depends on a variety of factors. In general, a short sale or foreclosure will affect your credit score 85-160 points. Many mistakenly believe, or are misinformed, that a derogatory credit event such as a foreclosure is somehow worse than a short sale. In the world of credit scores, however, both of these events look the same way; the customer did not pay as agreed.

What Is A Credit Score?

A credit score is the statistical prediction of one’s likelihood to pay late over the next two years.  The higher the score, the less likely one is to have a late payment.  The bank then uses this number to assess the amount of risk involved with lending someone money.  Banks are a lot like a casino in a sense, they like to place bets where they feel they will win.

Be aware that there are multiple credit scoring models.  Some of the credit scores in these models go up to 990.  While there are multiple formulas for calculating credit scores, the formulas introduced by the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) are the most widely used.  This score ranges from 300-850. Fair Isaac recently released a report stating that credit scores are affected nearly the same whether you go through a foreclosure or short sale. The report stated that the average points lost on a FICO score are as follows:

  • 30 Days Late = 40 to 110 Points
  • 90 Days Late = 70 to 135 Points
  • Foreclosure = 85-160 Points
  • Short Sale = 85-160 Points
  • Deed-in-lieu = 85-160 Points
  • Bankruptcy =130 to 230 Points

How Are Short Sales Reported To The Credit Bureaus?

FICO does not differentiate between a foreclosure and a short sale. Further complicating matters, lenders don’t have a uniform standard as to how they report a short sale to the credit bureaus. Some lenders report short sales as “settled as agreed” while others may report it as “account legally paid in full for less than the full balance.” In some cases, if the account is more than 120 days past due, the short sale will automatically show up as a “foreclosure” on the credit report.  Both a short sale and a foreclosure will report on your credit for seven years from the date of first delinquency.

How to Maximize Your Credit Score during a Short Sale or Foreclosure

Since the number of delinquent accounts is factored into the score, try not to let any other accounts become late or delinquent (if possible).  The second largest factor of your credit score is your debt ratio (the limit of your credit cards compared to the balances you carry) try not to let your balances exceed 30% of the limit.  Only apply for credit when absolutely necessary.  Do not close your credit cards.  If you are able to do all of these things you will be back into the 700’s before you know it.

Credit scores play a large factor in our lives, but ultimately we have many other priorities that are more important.  Credit, like many other things, will be healed over time.

——–

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different.  If you have specific questions about dealing with upside down loans or real estate, be sure to contact a real estate attorney in your State.  We provide advice worldwide concerning California property. Please feel free to contact us at sjbeede@bpelaw.com. We offer a $200 flat fee attorney consultation to review your situation and help you evaluate and choose the best opportunities. This can be done in person or by phone. If interested, please call us at 916-966-2260.

by Steve Beede, Robert Enos, Alexander Munn, and Keith Dunnagan

As readers of this Blog are aware, California recently enacted SB458 dramatically changing the rights of lenders who participate in a short sale. Although as we expected, this new law has made short sales much more difficult, recent experience has shown us an unexpected benefit, a ray of hope for all borrowers who previously completed a short sale and may have junior lender deficiency risk. 

Background on Deficiency Liability: California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580 contains the law governing rights of plaintiffs to obtain a judgment against a defendant. It’s principal Sections, 580a, b, c, and d, govern the rights of lenders to obtain a deficiency judgment against a borrower following a real estate foreclosure. For example, CCP 580b prohibits deficiency judgment for purchase money loans on 1-4 unit owner-occupied property. Until 2011 however there was no clear law defining liability in “short sales”. That changed last January with the passage of SB951 which added Section 580e, commonly called the Short Sale Anti-Deficiency Statute, which bars first lenders who consent to a short sale from getting any deficiency judgment against the borrower. While this was helpful, the change left unclear the rights of junior lenders who would regularly demand recourse and/or money in order to get their consent to do the short sale. This has now changed. 

Passage of SB 458 - On July 15, 2011, California enacted SB 458 which revised Section 580e and drastically changes how short sales are handled in California. The revised CCP580e now provides that:

     1) all lenders are prohibited from seeking or obtaining a deficiency judgment following a voluntary short sale (including junior lenders);  and

     2) no lender can require that the borrower make any monetary contribution to the sale proceeds.

The impact of these two provisions are tremendous for bad or good and since it’s passage we’re seeing both.

First the Bad: As we wrote immediately following the law’s passage (see Will New Law Help or Hurt Short Sales), our fear was that junior lenders would simply kill short sales and seek a better result through post-foreclosure deficiency lawsuits. That certainly has happened and currently short sale participants are scrambling to save sales through first lender, buyer, and agent contributions to junior lenders. There’s even instances of sellers supposedly “volunteering” contributions to junior lenders since under the new law such lenders cannot require them to do so. In other cases, sellers that have access to some cash are negotiating “discounted pay-offs” of junior loans removing them entirely from the short sale. But without question. SB458 made short sales much harder to complete and foreclosures are climbing.

Now the Good: Over the past four years, hundreds of thousands of short sales have been completed in California and in a great many cases sellers agreed to junior lender demands that they remain liable for any deficiency. While we are certain that SB458 bars all attempts at collection of deficiencies for short sales which close on or after July 15, 2011, the legal question is whether the new law will apply retroactively to protect sellers in already closed short sales. We have been arguing that it does and gaining great results from our clients who had been facing lender lawsuits. Here’s a sample of what we’re experiencing since the law was revised:

     (1)   A major credit union in our area unilaterally dismissed a lawsuit against a borrower who had signed a short sale approval letter in 2010 which contained a deficiency clause requiring her to pay nearly $100,000. The credit union dismissed the case because it had yet to obtain a judgment against the borrower, and believed that because the revised statute prohibits any judgment for any deficiency, it’s case no longer was valid;

     (2)    In another instance, a national lender well known for its aggressive deficiency collections settled a borrowers pre-SB458 deficiency for only 10 cents on the dollar due to the uncertainty surrounding the revised CCP580e. What is uncertain is whether the revised statute prohibits collection of pre-July 15, 2011 deficiencies. As with the nationally-known lender, the ambiguities in the statute forced the lender to accept a mere 10 cents on the dollar. Our expectation is that this will compel many lenders may make the same type of settlements.

Most importantly, if the lender has not as yet sued the borrower on a pre-SB458 deficiency, or has sued the borrower and has yet to obtain a judgment, CCP580e can be read as creating an absolute bar to any such actions. In summary, while the revised CCP580e will likely kill many short sales that would have, under the old statute, been approved, it is a ray of hope to those borrowers saddled with a deficiency obligation.

So, if you completed a short sale before July 15, 2011, or know of a past client who did so, and it contained a deficiency clause, contact one of our attorneys immediately to discuss possible defenses under the new statute.  If you’re in the middle of a short sale and having difficulty with junior lender demands, we can possibly help convince the junior lender that doing the short sale is their best option.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. If you are a real estate professional involved with short sales or in anyway providing communication or advice to upside-down owners, be sure to get competent legal advice in your State immediately before giving any advice.

If you have specific questions about dealing with upside down loans or real estate, feel free to contact us at sjbeede@bpelaw.com. We offer a $200 flat fee attorney consultation to review your situation and help you evaluate and choose the best opportunities. This can be done in person or by phone. If interested, please call us at 916-966-2260.

While we have all looked hopefully to an improving real estate market as 2011 progressed, it is now fairly clear that we’re in for continued uncertainty as financial concerns continue to rock the economy.

On the International level, the downgrade last week of the United States’ credit rating by Standard & Poor’s has triggered a dramatic sell-off in the stock market and raising the borrowing costs for the government. This means the cost of US Treasury bonds will climb and can be expected to push up real estate interest rates for new loans. Those borrowers with adjustable loans tied to Treasury rates can expect similar increases. The biggest fear is that this, combined with instability with European financial markets, will cause businesses to continue holding onto cash instead of investing in new jobs. Business confidence and job growth is needed to lift us out of this recession and avoid further declines.

On the National level, real estate foreclosure rates continue to climb. Lender Processing Servcice reports that 217,000 new foreclosures were started in June and that 4.1 million loans are now either in foreclosure or 90+ days delinquent. This is a 13% increase from last year. What this indicates is that efforts to assist upside-down borrowers continue to fail. Plus, we’re seeing an increase of defaults among borrowers who have interest-only loans which will convert to full-pay in 2012. Without an option to modify, refinance, or sell, many such borrowers are deciding to take the hit now. The key to making such a decision is knowing whether the borrower will be at risk of a lender lawsuit for recourse after a foreclosure or shaort-sale. BPE Law’s consult services for upside-down borrowers can answer these questions for California property owners.

California remains in disarray as borrowers, lenders, and agents still try to make sense of the recently passed SB458 which amended California Civil Code Section 580e. By barring junior lenders from either deficiancy recourse or contribution, the legislature suddenly made short sales an all or nothing situation. All lenders owe their investors a fiduciary duty to try to recover as much as reasonably possible. First lenders generally make more money from a short sale than they would from a foreclosure so, this change has not substantially affected them. But junior lenders now must weigh the nominal amount offered them by a first lender (typically $3,000) against what they might recover by suing the borrower for deficiency after the first lender forecloses. Unless the borrower is clearly a Bankruptcy candidate, junior lenders will increasingly find foreclosure more attractive than short sale. For Realtors, this means further declines in short sale closing rates, more REO properties, and continued market decline.

We have a long way to go and many hurdles to cross before we reach any kind of certainty. Huge lawsuits are being filed against lenders by their investors, most recdently AIG’s $10 billion suit last week against BofA. Meanwhile, the proposed Settlement of the Attorneys General lawsuits against lenders arising from the “robo-signer” scam remains in limbo. The battle-ground there is demands that lenders modify loans and cut principal balances. The lenders refuse… or at least refuse to agree to government-imposed loan changes. For upside-down borrowers, there is no indication that anything transpiring in the economy or in the courts will bring any more hope for homeowners nor will there be any government bailout.

In the long run, as with past recessions, it will take inspiring and effective political leadership to move us forward. Today’s political infighting in Washington and in the States - especially California - has not produced any sense of confidence in the US or the World that we have the political will to make the hard decisions necessary to put our economy on a path to recovery. Any path will be painful. How that pain is balanced will remain the battle-ground.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. If you have legal questions, be sure to contact competent legal counsel in your State. Here at BPE Law, we have over 50 years experience advising, assisting and representing California property owners, agents, brokers, and investors If you have specific questions about your California property,feel free to contact meat sjbeede@bpelaw.com or give us a call at (916) 966-2260.
While the real estate recession lingers on, one segment of the market is hot and competitive: buyers seeking to snap up great deals.?This has led to a situation we haven’t seen since the height of the real estate bubble: multiple buyers going after the same property.? While the winner is generally determined by whose purchase offer is accepted first, sellers and their agents are finding themselves in lawsuits by angry buyers who lost out yet who claim their offer was “accepted”. To clear some of the confusion, the following analyzes the law in California on when is a purchase offer actually accepted and enforceable.

WHAT MAKES A VALID OFFER? -
AN ACCEPTANCE MUST BE UNQUALIFIED

- To be effective, an acceptance must meet the terms proposed by the offer exactly, precisely, and unequivocally. It must be unconditional, and it cannot add new terms or conditions. A qualified acceptance is a counteroffer. An offer is not accepted if the acceptance adds a new condition. An offer qualified by new terms or conditions becomes a counteroffer and accomplishes a rejection of the offer. After a counteroffer, the original offer may not be accepted by the offeree.

A COUNTEROFFER MUST BE ACCEPTED IN FULL TO BE ENFORCEABLE

- The counteroffer is a new proposal that must be accepted by the original offeror. A counteroffer that is not accepted by the original offeror-counterofferee has no further legal significance, and no legal relationship is created. However, on acceptance of the counteroffer by the counterofferee, a contract is formed that is binding on and enforceable against the counterofferor.? A counteroffer includes the terms and conditions of the original offer. When an offeree makes a counteroffer, all of the terms of the original offer are incorporated into the counteroffer, except as modified by the counteroffer. Effect of a counteroffer to two offerees - When a counteroffer is made to two or more persons, each has the capacity to accept the offer. A counteroffer to two or more offerees that provides for an acceptance by the highest bid is binding on the counterofferor.

METHOD OF ACCEPTANCE IS GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THE OFFER

- When the method of communication is permitted by the terms of an offer and is reasonable under the circumstances, an acceptance, on being placed in the course of transmission, is legally effective to create a contract. To be considered “in the course of transmission,” the acceptance must be placed beyond the control of the offeree.?However, an offeror can prescribe the method of acceptance to be used. Real estate purchase contracts, including the CAR contracts, generally specify a method of acceptance that must be followed.??When the method?of acceptance is specified by the offeror, no other method is sufficient.? When an offer does not require a specific mode of acceptance, any reasonable and usual method is acceptable. If an offer merely suggests a permissive method of acceptance, any reasonable manner of acceptance is effective. The offeror can specify that an acceptance is not effective until received by the offeror. When an offeror does not want to be bound to a contract without knowledge and does not want to assume the risk of actual receipt, the offer can provide that the acceptance will not become effective until it is actually received by the offeror or the offeror’s agent. With such a provision, no contract is formed unless the acceptance is actually received by the offeror or the agent prior to the termination of the offer.

THE CAR RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT (5/10)

contains the following terms:

1) “Acceptance”

means the time the offer or final counter offer is accepted in writing by a party and is delivered to and personally received by the other party or that party’s authorized agent in accordance with the terms of this offer or a final counter offer.

2)”Delivery”

means the personal receipt by Buyer or Seller or the Individual Real Estate Licensee for that principal (unless other terms are stated).?The means of that delivery can be by messenger, mail, e-mail, fax, etc.

3) “Terms and Conditions of Offer”

includes the language: “Seller has the right to continue to offer the Property for sale and to accept any other offer at any time prior to notification of Acceptance”.

BOTTOM LINE:?

To create a binding and enforceable real estate purchase contract: 1) the Purchase Offer must be clear in its terms; 2) the Acceptance must be in writing and agreeing to the exact same terms; and 3) the Acceptance must be delivered to the offeror using the method stated in the offer.

WHAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTANCE -

The simple answer is any response to the offer that does not meet the above definition. For example:
1)?An oral acceptance does not create a contract for the sale of real estate (Statute of Frauds - must have a writing).?However, other types of contracts including rental agreements can be created orally;
2)?A phone call “I’m coming to your office to accept” - it’s just an oral acceptance;
3)?When there is no real meeting of the minds: the writing says it’s accepted but the communication conveying it states that there are other terms.

AVOIDING LAWSUITS -

There is no realistic ability to assure that no-one will sue another to enforce what they believe is an acceptance.?Winning that battle is another thing.?Often the filing of a lawsuit can be strategic to scare the Seller and competing Buyers.? If there is some reasonable grounds, this can be effective especially since such lawsuits tie up the property’s title (Lis Pendens).?Such grounds can include:
1) ?The terms of the offer state one method of acceptance but the Seller or their agent states another - this is not uncommon with REO sales where the terms?require written acceptance of the offer by the Seller but requires communication to be?e-mailed through Seller’s agent;
2) ?Written acceptance was delivered to agent’s office but agent didn’t personally know of it.? Is the acceptance enforceable? Possibly, but not if the terms of the offer require delivery to Seller, ie: agent is not authorized to bind the Seller so acceptance is not valid until received by Seller (unless Seller has withdrawn prior counter-offer or accepted other offer first.
The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. The key here is that if you are a party or agent involved in a dispute over a real estate contract, get competent legal advice?in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.. If you’re an agent, be sure to check your E&O coverage for when you must report possible claims. You could get sued by both sides.?
Here at BPE Law, we have over 50 years experience assisting and representing brokers, agents,?buyers, and sellers in real estate transactions and disputes of all kinds. We know what we’re doing and we can work seemlessly with your insurors if needed.? If you have specific questions about your transaction,?feel free to contact me?at sjbeede@bpelaw.com.
Or give us a call at (916) 966-2260.