As the recession has deepened and lengthened, many people who are fully able to afford the payments on their real estate loans on over-encumbered property have decided to walk-away and let the property go to foreclosure. For these people, the long time it would take to reach break-even simply doesn’t make financial sense. This practice has come to be called “Strategic Default”.   While the rights of the affected lenders will still be solely governed by the loan documents, as expected the lending industry is pushing for stronger penalties to curtail Strategic Defaults.

As reported widely on the web, Fannie Mae (”FNMA”), the government-sponsored enterprise that creates the “secondary market” by buying up mortgages, has stated that: “Defaulting borrowers who walk away and had the capacity to pay or did not complete a workout alternative in good faith will be ineligible for a new Fannie Mae-backed mortgage loan for a period of seven years from the date of foreclosure”.  We had previously reported that both FHA and FNMA were talking 5 years for this practice so we are not surprised at this announcement.

More worrisome is the FHA Reform Act (HR 5072) which was passed by the House of Representatives with nearly unanimous consent and is now being debated in the Senate. The proposed Act contains a provision that would bar strategic defaulters from getting an FHA loan any time in the future!  This Bill was supported of course by the lending lobby, but also by the National Association of Realtors and even by that  champion of the common man, Barney Frank.  Will it pass through the Senate? Almost certainly although it’s final form remains to be seen. While the overall objective of the Act is to save the financially-damaged FHA through raising the costs of mortgage insurance, this provision is obviously targeted at stopping the practice of strategic default. 

What remains unclear despite all the hype is how to define who exactly is a Strategic Defaulter.  While obviously a person with plenty of assets and financial capacity who defaults as a business decision would seem to fit the description, that may be more the exception than the norm. More common is the person, as reported in the Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/88445/strategic-default-penalties-threaten-struggling-homeowners, that suddenly realizes that they have been sinking steadily and if they don’t stop now they’ll lose everything.  Should that person be barred forever?  Of course not. What will most likely come out of this is a recommended process that upside down owners should always follow: First seek modification; then seek short sale; and only last let it go to foreclosure. For the borrower with financial capacity, the outcome may be the same but the process may infuence future borrowing ability.  Of course, if there is actual deficiency liability on the loan, the financially solvent borrower may not want to disclose their assets to the lender through a modification or short sale since this would certainly invite a demand for contribution or even for a judicial foreclosure (in California).

Lastly, there is the very real question of whether targeting strategic defaulters is fair and equitable. The loan being defaulted is a contract between the borrower and the lender that already provides remedies that the lender can take if a borrower defaults.  Both borrower and lender take on the known risks of what will happen on default. Why should government intervene in this contract to give the lenders even more remedies by effectively increasing the borrower’s risks?  Certainly the government has refused to effectively intervene to protect borrowers from the extraordinary risks in the sub-prime loans promoted by the lenders through 2007.  Meanwhile, the HAMP modification program hyped to help homeowners limps along with only 4.5% getting permanent modifications and virtually no-one getting principal reductions. 

Millions have lost their homes with no realistic assistance from the government and now this Act will not only further hurt future borrowers but will once again send a very clear message that as far as Congress is concerned, what’s good for the lenders is good for the country.  If you believe that this provision of the proposed Act should be dropped or changed, be sure to write your State Senator and make your concerns known.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different. 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.

The wave of possible lender lawsuits against borrowers has started, primarily by junior lenders whose seconds (often HELOCS) were wiped out when a senior lender foreclosed.  We presently are representing borrowers in a number of these lawsuits and have already settled several. The most important points to remember if you are served with a lawsuit are: 1) don’t panic and ignore it. Get competent legal counsel in your State to advise you how and when to respond; and 2) almost all such lawsuits will resolve without going to trial.

There are several defenses that can be raised in defense to any lender lawsuit that may reduce or even eliminate their claim. These include:

1. Lender does not own the loan - In order to file a lawsuit against you, the lender must actually “own” the loan, that is they own and have possession of the Promissory Note.  Loans change ownership all the time and it is possible that the lawsuit has been brought by a loan “servicer” or collection company, not the actual owner. If they cannot prove ownership, they do not have “legal standing” to file the lawsuit and they should lose.

2. Loan was predatory - One of the key reasons why we had this market collapse was that from 2000 through 2006, lenders made loans to borrowers who in reality could not afford the loan.  Sometime this was done by misstating income on “stated income” or “no document” loans and often this misstatement was done by the lender, not the borrower. Other times the loan was unrealistic, such as a 1% interest rate on which the borrower qualified for the loan but which jumped up much higher after the first month.  So the buyer only qualified on month one but would never qualify on month two.  Failure was inevitable unless the buyer could quickly flip the property.  If the lender should never have made the loan, they likely will not recover against the borrower in court.

3. Loan was result of fraud - Similar to predatory loans, many borrowers obtained loans through actual fraud where the loan agent altered information supplied by the borrower or made false representations to the borrower such as:  “take this adjustable rate now and we’ll convert it to a fixed rate within a year”. For most borrowers, that loan agent was never to be found within the year, the fixed rate was not obtainable, and the increasing adjustable rate forced the borrower into default.   If the lender’s loan agent defrauded the borrower into getting the loan, they likely will not recover against the borrower in court.

4. Lender failed to do diligence - One of the biggest causes of the market collapse was that the lenders failed to exercise any diligence in checking to make sure the information on the loan application was true, such as checking tax returns and confirming the borrowers employment and income.  The banking deregulation in the late 1990’s created a flood of money in the market for new loans to be made and lenders accepted virtually any application without checking whether the loan was good. The result was billions of dollars of bad loans secured with property that was not worth the debt.   If the lender should never have made the loan, they likely will not recover against the borrower in court.

5. Lender knew the market was inflated in a bubble - The combination of banking deregulation and easy money created a huge increase in demand by possible homeowners and investors which drove up the prices on available properties, often increasing by $10,000 or more in a single month.  Developers rushed in with new subdivisions everywhere trying to fill the demand as competition for homes kept driving prices upwards.  This inflationary bubble was almost entirely fueled by high-risk loans, speculative appraisals, and the lack of real underwriting and diligence by the lenders. It was completely foreseeable to lenders that this bubble would burst but they made the loans anyway because they earned commissions and could sell the loans in the secondary mortgage market.  It was no real surprise to lenders when the borrowers started defaulting in 2005 on the increasingly expensive loans which led to the collapse starting in 2006.  If the lender should never have made the loan, they likely will not recover against the borrower in court.

6. Lender has insurance for the loss - Many of the loans made were 100% of purchase price and even more. Generally, if the loan was for more than 80% of the property value, mortgage insurance (PMI) was required. Although paid for by the borrower, this insurance paid the lender for any loss on a default. The lawsuit may be an attempt by the lender to collect on a loss that they have already recovered on through the insurance. If the lender has already been compensated for any loss, they likely will not recover against the borrower in court.

7.  Lender has been bailed out by the taxpayers - Between 2008 and 2009, Federal bailout monies paid by taxpayers (including the borrower) provided protection for lenders damaged because of loan losses.  Our government guaranteed billions of dollars in lender bad debt, guarantees that we and our children will be paying for years to come. Many consider these bailouts to be a reward for bad business practices instead of the punishment that might be deserved. If the lender has already been compensated for any loss, they likely will not recover against the borrower in court.

How Should You Prepare? - In California, the deadline for a lender to bring a claim against a borrower is four years from the date the borrower defaulted. With hundreds of thousands of borrowers just now in default, these lawsuits will be a constant threat for many years to come.  These may be joined by deficiency lawsuits following short sales to which the same defenses can be raised in addition to several other defenses unique to short sales which I’ll cover in subsequent Blogs.

Before you make any decision concerning your upside-down home or investment property, be certain to get tax and legal advice from qualified professionals in your State who can look at your specific situation and advise you on how these rules apply to you, particularly on how to identify and minimize the risks of a lender lawsuit.  This Article is solely intended to give you an introduction to key legal concerns affecting borrowers today but you should not rely on it to apply to your financial circumstances.

If you have specific questions about your liability, short sales, foreclosure, or any legal issues, feel free to contact me 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. Need help Coping with an Upside Down Loan? Checkout Steve’s audio-seminar and e-book at: http://www.stevebeede.com/copingwithanupsidedownmortgage/.

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 sjbeede@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.”