California law requires that property owners must return the tenant’s security within three weeks from the time the tenant vacates and document any deductions. When ownership is transferred to another, the former owner is required to either transfer the deposits to the new owner or return them to the tenant.  But what happens when the property is foreclosed and the former owner that collected the security deposits is gone or even bankrupt?

Under California Civil Code Section 1950.5, a successor owner is jointly liable with the former owner to retun the deposits once the tenant vacates. The idea is that the innocent tenant’s right to the deposit should be protected and that any disputes over this are between the current and prior owner, not then tenant.  There is an ambiguity being argued by lenders that this obligation is extinguished by the foreclosure just as is the rental agreement itself.  This may be held to be true where the post-foreclosure owner treats the rental agreement as extinguished. In that case, the tenant similarly has no obligation to pay the rent and so the situation may become a wash.  But the result is reasonably different where the new owner treats the rental agreement as continuing and actually collects rent.  There, most likely, the law will protect the tenant.

Despite the above-stated ambiguity, all perties acquiring property through a foreclosure must anticipate that they will likely be liable for the tenat’s security deposit that was collected by the former owner. Further, they should make sure that they have a new rentail agreement signed by the tenant if the rental is to continue.

If you have any questions concerning your rights and obligations concerning real property, foreclosure, or any related issues, please feel free to contact me at stevebeede@bpelaw.com or contact my office at 916 966-2260 for a confidential appointment by phone or in person.

For upside down property owners, 2009 was a year of frustration and hype with little if any assistance. 2010 will likely be the same. Two key factors have become clear: 1) the unwillingness of lenders to cut principal balances for existing owners; and 2) the lack political will of our government to force any such cut. Back in 2008 when Hope for Homeowners was first ballyhood across the nation, the concept was that lenders would make more money by reducing existing loan balances and keeping owners in their homes than they would make if they foreclosed and put the property back on the market as an REO. The problem was that lenders disagreed. Lenders believed they would be better off getting what they could now and getting the property in the hands of a more financially stable owner. With loan modification failure rates running over 50%, there could be some validity in that belief. When President Obama was elected in 2009, he gave us the Obama Real Estate Recovery Plan the most valuable tool of which was the proposed Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Reform which would allow Federal judges to “Cram Down” principal values if the lenders wouldn’t. Unfortunately, the Senate wouldn’t go along and so the Plan failed. Instead, the government put forth the “Home Affordable Modification Program” which to date has produced very few home saving modifications.

So what to expect in 2010?  Here are my predictions:

1)  For Existing Property Owners  - Government will continue to tinker with the HAMP program to try to get more lender cooperation. The key obstacle will remain principal reduction. As lenders continue to refuse to make cuts, pressure is building to re-introduce the Bankruptcy cram-down legislation.  Look for increased lender cooperation with HAMP to avoid the cram-down but it will likely be too-little, too-late to avoid large scale foreclosures in 2010;

2)  Foreclosures - As of the new year, there are over 400,000 homes in pre-foreclosure nationwide, over 125,000 in California alone. Without an effective modification program, more owners will realize that it is time to move on and will either walk-away or attempt a short-sale to minimize credit and tax damage.

3)   Short Sales are the Market - For 2010 and probably for several years after, Short Sales will become the primary means of transferring homes.  Lenders have managed to stabalize prices by holding back on foreclosures and listing REO’s but there is a tremendous backlog of upside-down properties that need to be dealt with. Short Sales offer both seller and lender the best solution. The big obstacle - lender demands for recourse against the seller - is changing. Even BofA has dropped their recourse demands. Short Sales will be the path to market recovery although don’t expect prices to start climbing. Right now inventories are low so there has been some upward price movement due to supply and demand. As lenders get their short sale act together, and Realtors become more effective at negotiating and packaging these deals, more properties will come onto the market. Though this will keep prices down, more properties will be sold and we’ll all get through this housing bust faster.

4)  Commercial Real Estate - the big unknown - in 2010, our attention will shift away from upside down homes (that issue is being resolved) and will turn to fears of business collapse and loss of jobs. According to commercial broker, Grubb & Ellis, we’re approaching the highest vacancy rates since the dot com bust, with office vacancy reaching almost 20%.  With banks still fearful of lending and individuals fearful of spending, this double-whammy put more and more companies out of business and with them went a loss of jobs that has continued the downward spiral.  While few expect that these conditions will create a Depression-style generation of non-spenders, clearly the debt-fueled spending of pre-2006 is over. Bob Bach, senior vice president and chief economist at Grubb & Ellis put it clearly: “Retailers and owners of retail real estate will need to adapt to a ‘new normal’ in consumer attitudes that may last for some time, including more conservatism and attention to value as households rebuild their savings.”

2010 PRESENTS NEW OPPORTUNITIES - So what should you do going into 2010?  Get good advice. We are in a changed economy that is going to be with us for a long time. If the only economy you’ve known is the “go-go” days before 2006, get educated. Our economy operates on booms and busts which generally happen every 8-10 years.  You cannot simply sit on the sidelines and wait for things to get back to where they were. They won’t…. at least not for a long time.  But this new economy is full of opportunities for those willing to work hard and be creative. The US Dept of Labor estimates that more than half of all new jobs will be in in professional and related occupations and service occupations. Learn more at their website at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm. I see a rise in demand for Short Sales Specialists;  Consultants in real estate; and small boutique service companies providing cost-effective services to businesses.  Production jobs will continue to disappear.

Lastly, I remain bullish on real estate investment despite having now gone through five down-turns including two crashes.  Throughout history, real estate has been the most stable long-term investment providing both shelter and income potential. This will remain so.  The danger in all investments is expecting continued growth which, if that happened, would not make it an investment at all.  Investment is the taking of “risk” in pursuit of the “potential” of gain. The risk will never go away nor the potential. So my advice to you is don’t give up on investing but keep your day job.

If you have specific questions about your loans, liability, foreclosure, or any legal issue, feel free to contact me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or call us at (916) 966-2260 for a phone or personal appointment.  We offer a $200 flat fee attorney consultation to enable you to evaluate your judgment and tax risks and to plan a strategy to minimize or even avoid them.  Need help Coping with an Upside Down Loan? Checkout Steve’s audio-seminar and e-book at: http://www.stevebeede.com/copingwithanupsidedownmortgage/.  

On Monday, October 12, 2009, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 260 which, effective January 1, 2010, will ban negative amortization loans and preclude mortgage brokers from earning special fees on these high risk loans. According to the Bill’s author, Assemblyman Ted Lieu, the intent is to ban the practices that led to the foreclosure crisis that eventually triggered the recession which we now suffer. This will be good news for some but offers no assistance for the millions who remain at risk of losing their homes under their existing negative amortizing loan contracts. Although lenders will stop making such loans, they have been extremely resistant to cleaning up (modifying) such loans.

As those of you who have followed my Blogs know, the negative-amortization loan was a program offered by lenders to make loans to people who couldn’t qualify for normal fixed rate loans. Because they were marketed on a very low teaser start-rate, a great many gullible borrowers signed up believing the promises that they could later convert to fixed rate or “flip the home” for a profit. Both of these incentives were the unintended consequences of our Government’s desire in the late 1990s to expend home ownership and the American Dream.  The result was that millions of people got loans to buy homes they could not really otherwise afford. When the adjustments started happening and the homes couldn’t be flipped, this expansion of the American Dream quickly became a worldwide nightmare that we’re still dealing with.

The sad reality in all of this is that the lenders were very familiar with the dangers of adjustable rate loans from the problems in the 1980’s but it didn’t stop them from taking the fees up front and setting up this house of cards which had to collapse.  Hopefully this new law will stop such risky practices in the future and compel the lenders to be trustee stewards of their investors’ monies and their borrowers’ expectations.

Possibly this new law will add additional fuel to the legal arguments raised by attorneys seeking to stop foreclosures of these high-risk and now illegal loans. Since it is not retroactive, it does not have any legal effect on existing loans but certainly may influence a judge or jury in determining whether a loan was predatory.

If you have specific questions about your liability, foreclosure, or any legal issue, feel free to contact me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or call us at (916) 966-2260 for a phone or personal appointment.  Need help Coping with an Upside Down Loan? Checkout Steve’s audio-seminar and e-book at: http://www.stevebeede.com/copingwithanupsidedownmortgage/. 

The question keeps coming up:  What is the deficiency liability of an individual involved in a short sale?

In the current real estate market, short sales are becoming more prevalent as defaulting borrowers attempt to avoid a foreclosure on their property. The risk is whether a borrower after completing a short sale and receiving approval from the lender(s) would then become liable for any deficiency arising out of the difference between the principal amount owed on the mortgage(s) secured by the property and the amount the sale price agreed to during the short sale.

The short answer (in California at least) is that given the current statutory framework and case law available on this issue it is unclear whether there is any liability. California has three interconnected laws that govern lender recourse:  1) the Security First Rule; 2) the Single Action Rule; and 3) the Acquisition Loan Rule. These all limit the ability of a lender to go after a borrower for a deficiency following a foreclosure.  The language of each statute itself is broad enough that arguable they will preclude deficiency liability after a short sale (ie: the lender cannot simply waive the Security First Rule by releasing their security and then suing on the remaining debt).

Lenders have been scrambling to find a way around these Rules and create some recourse against borrowers following a voluntary short sale.  A short sale is a contract between the lender(s), seller/borrower, and buyer. In the contract, the lender is essentially agreeing to compromise their position in order to avoid a foreclosure. The lender is getting something of value in return for their agreement to the short sale. Likewise, the seller/borrower is getting something by way of release from deficiency debt. If the lender were to attempt to pursue a deficiency, against the borrower/seller then the contract likely fails for lack of consideration. Essentially, the borrower/seller in that situation got nothing of value for their participation in the short sale contract.  Whether less credit damage is consideration enough is very questionable.

Taking this to the last step in the analysis, brings us to the theory of accord and satisfaction. Which is a term of art that simply states that when one settles their rights for value and receives that value, then they have compromised their claim and can not pursue it any longer. By agreeing to contract for the short sale, the lender(s) is essentially stating that they are willing to take less in the short sale process to avoid the foreclosure process. Thereby precluding the lender from asserting additional claims for deficiency after the settlement process.

What has been happening with frequency lately, is that some lenders (such as BofA) are requiring borrowers/sellers to sign a document stating that the borrower will remain liable for the deficiency as a condition to the lender consenting to the short sale. The lender(s) are trying to contract around the anti-deficiency statutes prohibitions. While it is permissible for parties to contract around statutory obligations there is not any known reported case law on this particular issue where there is no real benefit to the seller/borrower… especially when it the contract increases the lender’s benefits. Certainly, it seems that by requiring the borrower/seller to sign such a document, there is a lack of consideration as discussed above. Thereby possibly nullifying the documents effect. However, there is no case law on this topic.

The bottom-line reality is if you are confronted with one of these documents, you should seek legal counsel regarding the terms of the particular agreement before executing the document, as you very well could be contracting away anti-deficiency protection and more than likely exposing yourself to costly litigation.

With all of the on-going action about rescuing homeowners from foreclosure and rescuing banks from “toxic” assets, little has been heard about the needs of businesses who are being strangled by the unavailability of credit. Today, President Obama came to the rescue.  As reported in the Chicago Tribune, Obama hopes to get credit flowing again to Main Street, not just Wall Street, by authorizing the government to spend up to $15 billion to buy the small-business loans that are now choking community banks and lenders. That, in turn, could allow those banks to start lending money again to small companies to invest, pay bills and stay afloat. Small businesses have created about 70 percent of the new jobs over the past decade, and as their credit lines have dried up, so has their ability to thrive or survive.

Normally, primary bank lenders can issue loans to small businesses and then sell those loans to what’s known as a secondary market of bigger bankers. The sales allow the community lenders to make even more loans and keep the credit cycle going. But that isn’t happening. Skittish investors have been staying away.
So under Obama’s plan, the government will start buying up many of the loans directly, with terms to be worked out as soon as the end of the month. The $15 billion will come from a bailout plan already approved by Congress to rescue the financial sector. Obama aides say the plan will offer fast, direct help.

There was also a political component to all the attention the president gave to small businesses. The White House is aware of the nation’s bailout fatigue; hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to prop up financial giants who made poor decisions, while many others who have done no wrong have paid the price.
Pres. Obama made clear to show he was on the side of everyday entrepreneurs. He said small businesses “are the heart of the American economy” and “the heart of the American dream” and the core of “America’s story.”