As reported in the Sacramento Bee and various financial news outlets, on Monday, October 24th, President Obama announced the administrations latest effort to help troubled homeowners, a revised Home Affordable Refinance Program, commonly called HARP.  Two big questions loom over the aministration’s latest bid to help troubled homeowners: Will it work? And who would benefit?

By easing eligibility rules, the administration hopes 1 million more homeowners will qualify for its refinancing program and lower their mortgage payments - twice the number who have already. The program has helped only a fraction of the number the administration had envisioned. In part, that’s because many homeowners who would like to refinance can’t because they owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. But it’s also because banks are under no obligation to refinance a mortgage they hold - a limitation that won’t change under the new plan.

Here are some of the major questions and answers about the administration’s initiative:

Q: What is the program?

A. The Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, was started in 2009. It lets homeowners refinance their mortgages at lower rates. Borrowers can bypass the usual requirement of having at least 20 percent equity in their home. But few people have signed up. Many “underwater” borrowers - those who owe more than their homes are worth - couldn’t qualify under the program. Roughly 22.5 percent of U.S. homeowners, about 11 million, are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a real estate data firm. As of Aug. 31, fewer than 900,000 homeowners, and just 72,000 underwater homeowners, have refinanced through the administration’s program. The administration had estimated that the program would help 4 million to 5 million homeowners.

Q. Why did so few benefit?

A. Mainly because those who’d lost the most in their homes weren’t eligible. Participation was limited to those whose home values were no more than 25 percent below what they owed their lender. That excluded roughly 10 percent of borrowers, CoreLogic says. In some hard-hit areas, borrowers have lost nearly 50 percent of their home’s value. Another problem: Homeowners must pay thousands in closing costs and appraisal fees to refinance. Typically, that adds up to 1 percent of the loan’s value - $2,000 in fees on a $200,000 loan. Sinking home prices also left many fearful that prices had yet to bottom. They didn’t want to throw good money after a depreciating asset. Or their credit scores were too low. Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan acknowledged that the program has “not reached the scale we had hoped.”

Q: What changes is the administration making?

A. Homeowners’ eligibility won’t be affected by how far their home’s value has fallen. And some fees for closing, title insurance and lien processing will be eliminated. So refinancing will be cheaper. The number of homeowners who need an appraisal will be reduced, saving more money. Some fees for those who refinance into a shorter-term mortgage will also be waived. Banks won’t have to buy back the mortgages from Fannie or Freddie, as they previously had to when dealing with some risky loans. That change will free many lenders to offer refinance loans. The program will also be extended 18 months, through 2013.

Q: Who’s eligible?

A. Those whose loans are owned or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which the government took control of three years ago. Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages - nearly 31 million loans. They buy loans from lenders, package them into bonds with a guarantee against default and sell them to investors. To qualify for refinancing, a loan must have been sold to Fannie and Freddie before June 2009. Homeowners can determine whether their mortgage is owned by Fannie or Freddie by going online: Freddie’s loan tool is at freddiemac.com/mymortgage; Fannie’s is at fanniemae.com/loanlookup. Mortgages that were refinanced over the past 2 1/2 years aren’t eligible. Homeowners must also be current on their mortgage. One late payment within six months, or more than one in the past year, would mean disqualification. Perhaps the biggest limitation on the program: It’s voluntary for lenders. A bank remains free to reject a refinancing even if a homeowner meets all requirements.

Q: Will it work?

A. For those who can qualify, the savings could be significant. If, for example, a homeowner with a $200,000 mortgage at 6 percent can refinance down to 4.5 percent, the savings would be $3,000 a year. But the benefit to the economy will likely be limited. Even homeowners who are eligible and who choose to refinance through the government program could opt to sock away their savings or pay down debt rather than spend it.

Q: How many homeowners will be eligible or will choose to participate?

A: Not entirely clear. The government estimates that up to 1 million more people could qualify. Moody’s Analytics says the figure could be as high as 1.6 million. Both figures are a fraction of the 11 million or more homeowners who are underwater, according to CoreLogic, a real estate data research firm.

Q: Who will benefit most?

A: Underwater homeowners in the hard-hit states of Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada could be greatly helped. Many are stuck with high mortgage rates after they were approved for mortgages with little or no money as a down payment and few requirements. The average annual savings for a U.S. household would be $2,500, officials say.

Q: When will it start?

A: Fannie and Freddie will issue the full details of the plan lenders and servicers on Nov. 15, officials say. The revamped program could be in place for some lenders as early as Dec. 1.

Bottom-line:  Will it help or is it just more political hype? - Market watcher DSNews.com notes that since HARP was rolled out in early 2009, approximately 1 million homeowners have refinanced their mortgage loans through the program. FHFA estimates that with the revised guidelines, another 1 million will be able to take advantage of the program.  If you are part of that additional 1 million, the revised HARP may enable you to save your home.  However, a big restriction will be the requirement that borrowers be current on their loans. For many, they’ve been told that to prove a “hardship” they must stop paying, ie: how can you really have a hardship if you’re still current on the loan? Since lenders are not at all compelled to participate in HARP, why would they want to take on additional risk for a borrower that is current on their payments?  So, looking at this from a purely business-decision view, HARP is not likely to benefit those who need it most. 

In all of these “solutions” to the debt crisis, what has remained absent and sadly will most likely continue to be absent is any significant push to compel lenders to reduce principal balances to enable borrowers to keep their homes. Common sense would suggest that if a lender is going to recover only 50% of the principal through a short sale or a foreclosure, they would be better off cutting the principal balance by 25% and keeping the borrower in their home. Unfortunately, common sense has never prevailed. HARP will effectively shift the refinanced liability to the taxpayer.  Similarly, many States are using stimilus money, ie: taxpayer money, to help homeowners pay their loans.  Nothing forces the lenders to actually bear the cost of a home-saving solution. 

While the revised program seeks to lower mortgage payments for underwater homeowners, the program does nothing to address the core problem — owing more than the home is worth. Though borrowers may save hundreds of dollars a month in lower payments by refinancing, they routinely owe tens of thousands of dollars more than their homes are worth, even after receiving aid. “In most cases people would probably be better off walking,” said economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

If you are a California property owner, consider our $200 Attorney Consult program that will help you determine all of your options and choose the best strategy to enable you to move forward as intact as possible.  To learn more, contact me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or call us at 916 966-2260. 

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every persons situation is different. If you are upside-down on your loan(s), especially if you’re facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

As you should know from reading my Blog postings, the passage of Califonia’s SB458 on July 15th changed the game plan for doing short sales.  Its most important aspect was barring junior lenders from having recourse against the borrower/seller or even asking them for monetary contribution. Although the feared crash of short sales has never occurred as severely as expected, real estate agents have been struggling to get junior lender cooperation. What has evolved is a number of “work-arounds” to get the junior lenders satisfied and get the short sale completed.

A workaround is simply a method, sometimes used temporarily, for achieving a task or goal when the usual or planned method isn’t working.  In the case of short sales, junior lenders who aren’t satisfied with what they may get from the first lender’s sale proceeds and barred by SB458 from getting anything from the borrower may refuse to do the short sale and hope they can do better if they sue the borrower after the first lender forecloses. Here are a few of the ways that creative and successful real estate agents are working around the SB458 restrictions and saving their clients from foreclosure:

1. Get Money from Someone Else - SB458 simply says that no lender can request a contribution from the Seller/borrower as part of a short sale.  It does not say that a lender cannot get contribution from others.  First Lender:  Typically the only money offered to junior lenders comes from the First Lender that gets almost all of the sale proceeds. Generally, first lenders make more money from a short sale than they could from a foreclosure but they regularly refuse to give the juniors any more than $6,000.  But if a foreclosure would bring much less to the first lender, they could be convinced to share more with the junior in order to net more for themselves through the short sale.  Buyer:  It is the Buyer who is bringing the money to the table.  If the Buyer really wants the property, they may be willing to contribute money to the junior lender to make the deal happen. This might be workable into the Buyer’s loan.  Real Estate Agents: Although agents hate this, it is not unusual for lenders to look to the agents to cut their commissions and let the difference go to the junior lender.  This is a “something is better than nothing” approach that unfortunately penalizes the parties that have put the deal together.

2.  Voluntary Seller Contribution - SB458 states that a lender cannot “require” the seller/debtor to make any contribution. But nothing says that the seller cannot “volunteer” a contribution. While in reality, no-one generally voluntarily decides to give money when they are not asked for it, the drafters of SB458 allowed that a seller may do just that if they have the funds and they want to get the deal done.  Typically this will be in response to a junior lender responding to a short sale offer with a requirement that they receive $X more.  While this does not state who must pay this, the language of the request is that any other party in the short sale can do so, including the seller.

3.   Re-write the Buyer’s Offer - If the junior lender can’t be satisfied, then the deal could die.  If so, then some agents have gone back to the buyer and written a new short sale offer for a lower purchase price than the original deal… lower by the additional amount the junior lender wants to receive.  The new offer is submitted and, if the first lender accepts the offer terms, the junior lender counters at the original offer price with the increased money going only to the junior lender. This has been working.

4.  Discount the Junior Loan outside of escrow - If the first lender refuses to allow money to be paid by the seller to the junior lender, then the sale might die and the seller would face foreclosure. Instead, it is possible to put the escrow on hold and, outside of escrow, the seller could negotiate with the junior lender to accept a discounted payoff of their loan.  For example, the seller pays money to the junior lender and the junior lender accepts this as satisfaction of the debt and releases their lien.  Then the escrow is re-opened, only the first lender is left in the deal, and the short sale closes.  We typically are successful negotiating discounted loan payoffs for 10-20% of the current balance.

5.   Discounted payoff before short sale - For some sellers who are upside-down on a property but have substantial other assets, there is a danger in doing a short sale in that the Hardship Application process requires that they disclose their personal assets.  This can cause a junior lender to reject a short sale because they believe they can collect from the seller in a post-foreclosure lawsuit.  In such cases, it can be better to negotiate a discounted payoff with the junior lender before you ever start the short sale.  Now it is simply a business transaction: how much will the junior lender accept in exchange for a lien release?  Again, 10-20% is common but generally no financial statements are required. If this works and the junior loan is eliminated, then the seller may be able to proceed with the short sale knowing that first lenders will almost always accept the short sale terms.

All of the foregoing concepts are foreclosure-avoidance, short sale success strategies that real estate agents and their clients are actually using in today’s California real estate market. If you are having success with other creative approaches, please let us know. Remember: all agreements in a short sale must be disclosed to everyone and must appear on the Closing Statement (HUD1). No secret side deals are allowed. Secret side deals are mortgage fraud and could subject participants to severe legal consequences. 

If you are a California property owner, consider our $200 Attorney Consult program that will help you determine all of your options and choose the best strategy to enable you to move forward as intact as possible.  To learn more, contact me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or call us at 916 966-2260.  If you are interested in discounted loan negotiations, please contact my Associate Attorney, Alex Munn, at awmunn@bpelaw.com or call him at the office.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every persons situation is different. If you are upside-down on your loan(s), especially if you’re facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.