Upside-down borrowers, frustrated with a lack of lender willingness to modify their loans and desperate to keep their homes, often turn to lawyers who promise to stop foreclosures and force lenders to modify loans. But all too often what appears to be a meritorious Complaint gets quickly thrown out by the Courts and the borrower ends up still losing their home… plus thousands of dollars in legal fees. 

Significantly, in these cases the borrower typically requests and is granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the pending foreclosure sale.  It appears as a quick victory. But a TRO is just a short-term stoppage for approx. two weeks at which point the borrower must convince the court to grant a Preliminary Injunction stopping foreclosure for the entire time it takes to get the case to trial which could be two years or more.  Here is where the lenders are winning the war.

The following analyzes several of the legal arguments raised against the lenders and what has happened in the Courts. The cases cited all originated in California state courts but were decided in the Federal courts. The decisions appear consistent with what is happening in other states. 

1.  I MADE ALL THE TRIAL MODIFICATION PAYMENTS AND GAVE THEM ALL THE DOCUMENTS THEY ASKED FOR. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL THEM TO MODIFY MY LOAN   -  This argument is often raised as part of a lawsuit to stop a foreclosure from occurring.  The underlying arguments are: 1) the lender did not handle my HAMP modification application properly (Negligence claim); or 2) I met the lender’s or HAMP’s loan mod requirements but the lender denied the modification anyway (Beach of Contract claim) ; or 3) the lender never intended to give me the modification, they just wanted to get my Trial Mod payments (Fraud claim).  Most loan modifications on homes are being done under the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).  Where a borrower doesn’t fit HAMP’s guidelines, many lenders have their own “proprietary” modification programs.  The legal question is whether a borrower can force the lender to modify if they fit within the guidelines.  The courts routinely are saying: “No”.  In January, 2011, in the case of Phipps v Wells Fargo Bank, the Federal Court ruled that a Borrower has no right to sue a lender to force a HAMP modification. Even before this, in the 2009 case of Pantoja v Countrywide Home Loans, the Federal Court ruled that California laws do not impose a duty to modify a mortgagor’s loan.

2.   THE LENDER PROMISED ME THEY WOULD EXTEND THE FORECLOSURE SO I COULD COMPLETE MY MODIFICATION BUT THEY THEN FORECLOSED ANYWAY. THE COURT SHOULD UNWIND THE SALE AND GET MY HOME BACK  - Again the courts are routinely saying: “No”. In the 2010 case of Mehta v Wells Fargo Bank (Fed Ct decison 3/29/2011), the Court ruled: a gratuitous oral promise to postpone a sale is ordinarily unenforceable. Typically the loan agreements require that any modification be in writing and signed by all. Alternatively, the borrower must have proviuded the lender with some “consideration” to which the lender is not otherwise entitled. Merely submitting modification application documents is not consideration nor is it enough to have continued making Trial Mod payments.  Without a written agreement with the lender extending the sale, the foreclosure will not be rescinded.

3.   IF THE LENDER CANNOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE, THE COURT SHOULD BAR THEM FROM FORECLOSING  -  This “standing” argument has received extensive publicity natonwide, especially concerning the rights of MERS to foreclose.  Although early rulings tended to vary, Courts are more generally ruling in favor of the foreclosing lenders. As stated in Pantoja v Countrywide Home Loans, under California law there is no requirement to produce the original note prior to completing a non-judicial foreclosure (Trustee’s Sale).  A different result could possibly arise in a Judicial Foreclosure although that process is extremely rare in a home foreclosure.  Similarly, the courts agree that MERS has a right to foreclose when MERS is named in the Deed of Trust (which is most often the case).

4.   I WOULD HAVE PAID BUT THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE  - California has a “Tender Rule” which requires the borrower to allege and to prove not that they “concievably” could have paid, but it was “plausible” that they would have paid.  Simply put, actual proof of real capacity to pay is needed.  Court rulings are consistent: If you couldn’t pay anyway, a defective notice was not the cause of the foreclosure.

The bottom-line in all of this is to be wary in believing that just because the lender may have mishandled your loan modification, a court will help you out.  At a basic level, a loan is a contract between the lender and borrower in which the lender gives the borrower money in exchange for the borrower promising to repay the loan on the terms in the written agreement.  Courts will generally not interfere in the contractual agreements of parties unless one of the parties breaches the agreements or does some other illegal action.

Obviously the above analysis just touches the surface of where the law is today.  Hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases are moving through the courts as borrowers seek to keep their homes.  In some cases, different courts will reach different rulings from those stated in this Article.  However, it does appear that these decisions are likely to be widely followed.  In fact, just yesterday a Sacramento Superior Court judge denied a Preliminary Injunction after having granted a TRO and allowed the foreclosure to continue. The judge’s legal reasoning cited all of the cases identified above and more. 

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 facing a lender lawsuit, or if you are considering suing your lender, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

If you have specific questions about your 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.

For the past three years, I’ve been regularly advising upside-down property owners on the challenges, risks, and strategies of dealing with their lenders and upside down loans.  Over 2,000 borrowers and their Realtors have consulted with us to determine what they should do.  As our nation’s economy slowly recovers, some solutions have improved such as lender’s willingness to do short sales while others have gotten worse such as the failure of loan modification programs.  And we’re now defending more and more clients from lender and collection company lawsuits seeking deficiency judgments.

At the request of several clients, we’re providing the following informational links to Outlines that can help owners and Realtors know which questions to ask and learn which way to proceed.

Guide for Upside-Down Property Owners

Outline for Property Owners Seminar

Outline for Realtors Seminar

If you have specific questions about your 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.

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 facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

Last Fall, controversy erupted nationwide when it was disclosed that lenders were falsifying Declarations legally required to foreclosure on defaulted property owners. The law requires that someone with personal knowledge of the facts declare under oath that the facts were true and that they justified the foreclosure.  In reality, banks were having staff members sign thousands and thousands of these Declarations without even reading them and with no personal knowledge of the facts they were swearing to.

Although the furor quickly died when banks promised to clean-up their acts, the Attorneys General of many States brought legal charges against the lenders. Last week, they unveiled a draft Settlement which contains a great many provisions which, if adopted, would end the abuses and inefficiencies which have plagued the loan modification process and led to the foreclosure of millions of homes.  Most controversial however is the requirement II.M. of the draft Settlement which would require lenders to consider and apply Principal Reductions as part of the loan modification process.  Opposition has been swift.

As reported in DSNews.com, almost as soon as the draft Settlement was released, Bank of America’s CEO, Brian Moynihan, spoke out against the principal reduction requirement saying “it would not be fair to underwater homeowners who have struggled to remain current”.  Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama stated: “This proposed settlement appears to be an attempt to advance the administration’s political agenda, rather than an effort to help homeowners who were harmed by a servicer’s actual conduct”.  And Iowa Attorney General, Tom Miller, acknowledged that “too generous a program might encourage homeowners to walk away from properties…”.  This was followed by the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Spencer Bachus, who called the draft an effort to “transform the mortgage servicing industry and fundamentally change the rules that have historically governed relationships among borrowers, servicers, and investors”. He asked: “Will forcing servicers to fund principal reductions for underwater loans they service affect the incentive of mortgagors to stay current on their loans?”

Obviously the proposed Settlement is just a draft at this point and the final terms may vary greatly from the initial proposal.  But judging from the initial media reports, there is a widespread opposition to intervening in the lender-borrower relationship by compelling principal write-downs.  If the investors who provide their moneys to lenders to make loans cannot rely on their right to enforce the loan terms when there has been a default, those investors may decide to invest elsewhere. If so, the availablity of loans, especially for the riskier borrowers, will become much more difficult to obtain.  No matter what else happens, the political discussion created as a result of the Robo-Signer scam could potentially change the entire financial system for both the better and for the worse.

Please take the time to review the draft Settlement and let your Attorney General and House and Senate representatives know how you feel on this issue. Watch this Blog and others as the revisions occur.

Meanwhile, if you have specific questions about your 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.

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 youre facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

Anyone who has tried to get a loan modification through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) knows what a frustrating and, most-often, unsuccessful “solution” this has been for upside-down homeowners seeking to save their homes.  As I have previously reported, only 4.6% of applicants ever obtain a permanent HAMP modification and, as of those, 60% later fail generally because there is no principal reduction.

HAMP was created in 2009 as a part of President Obama’s plan to stabilize the housing market and help struggling homeowners get relief and avoid foreclosure.  Yet for 2010, HAMP modifcations declined compared to lender’s own proprietary modifications. Meanwhile, these have been dwarfed by foreclosures, 2.6 million foreclosures started and 1 million completed. 

In a report to Congress published the first week of February, Neil Barofsky described the drawbacks and potential problems the bank bailout had created in regard to companies deemed “too-big-to-fail.” His report also covered controversial issues surrounding the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), designed by Treasury as a foreclosure prevention effort.  Barofsky is the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The HAMP initiative, including incentive payouts to servicers, borrowers, and investors, is funded with TARP dollars.

HAMP, Barofsky says in the report, “continues to fall dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success.”  According to Barofsky, the program was doomed from the beginning, because it was inefficiently designed with inconsistent rules that have been revised too frequently. He calls the 522,000 permanent modifications the program provided in 2010 “anemic,” and calls attention to the more than 792,000 trial and permanent modifications that have been canceled and more than 152,000 that are still in limbo.  In December, the Congressional Oversight Panel estimated that at this rate, HAMP will generate anywhere from 700,000 to 800,000 permanent modifications, a far cry from the 3 to 4 million modifications predicted by Treasury.

Not only does Barofsky assert that HAMP is not working because of poor design and implementation, but he also says another issue is the participation and administration of the program by servicers. Servicers, he says, have been compounding the problems of the program with unnecessary delays, by failing to follow program standards, and even by misplacing borrower paperwork. Treasury’s reaction to these issues has been lenient because of a fear that enforcing the program rules will encourage servicers to discontinue use of HAMP all together. “Without meaningful servicer accountability,” Barofsky writes, “the program will continue to flounder. Treasury needs to recognize the failings of HAMP and be willing to risk offending servicers. And if getting tough means risking servicer flight, so be it; the results could hardly be much worse.”

In response to the Barofsky Report, three congressmen on the Oversight and Government Reform Committe have proposed a bill to end the program.  “HAMP is a colossal failure,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who is chair of the Oversight subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending. He continued, “In many cases, it has hurt the very people it promised to help. It’s one more example of why government interference in the private sector doesn’t work and that’s why it should be repealed.”  Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R- North Carolina), , who chairs the Oversight subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, thinks enough is enough. “The number of homeowners kicked out of HAMP – and arguably left worse off by participating in the program– exceeds the number actually helped by hundreds of thousands,” he said.

What the future holds for HAMP and how this will impact the millions of financially-strapped borrowers trying to save their homes is unknown.  Don’t expect any improvement from the government. As frustrating as the present system is, it is the only path to modification.  Don’t quit trying but don’t put yourself in a deeper hole in the process.  Get good, qualified information early and watch for changes.

If you have specific questions about loan modifications, 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 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 youre facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

Anyone involved in the real estate industry is aware of the processing problems at Bank of America.  Applicants for loan modification get pushed from trial mod to trial mod before being rejected and borrowers in default are often going two years without paying while no foreclosure is started.  Perhaps that will now be changing.

As reported in DSNews.com, Bank of America announced Friday that it has set up a new operational division to deal with problem loans and resolve investors’ mortgage repurchase claims. The newly formed unit, which the company has labeled Legacy Asset Servicing, will service all defaulted loans and discontinued residential mortgage products. It will be led by Terry Laughlin. Laughlin will oversee the bank’s mortgage modification and foreclosure programs, in addition to his existing duties of resolving residential mortgage representation and warranties repurchase claims.  In addition, Laughlin is charged with leading BofA’s borrower outreach program to include more than 400 housing rescue fairs in 2011, building additional homeowner assistance centers in communities across the country, and expanding partnerships with nonprofits.

The decision to establish a new, separate division to handle the company’s problem loans came out of the North Carolina bank’s very recent, and very public, robo-signing quandary, which prompted reviews of hundreds of thousands of case files and a nationwide suspension of all Bank of America foreclosures and REO sales. The bank said in a statement that the issues that came to light in September and October of last year led the company to initiate a “self-assessment of default servicing.”  While the review of the foreclosure process found that the underlying grounds for foreclosure decisions has been accurate, Bank of America implemented a series of improvements – including staffing, customer impact, and quality controls,” the company said.

Barbara Desoer, Bank of America Home Loans president, will continue to oversee the servicing of the company’s more than 12 million mortgage customers who remain current on their accounts, as well as the mortgage origination side of the business.  “This alignment allows two strong executives and their teams to continue to lead the strongest home loans business in the industry, while providing greater focus on resolving legacy mortgage issues,” said Brian Moynihan, BofA’s president and CEO. “We believe this will best serve customers – both those seeking homeownership and those who face mortgage challenges – as well as our shareholders and the communities we serve.”

Bank of America also said Friday that it is exiting the reverse mortgage origination business, citing “competing demands and priorities that require investments and resources be focused on other key areas of our business.”  Bank of America Home Loans will continue to serve the needs of existing reverse mortgage customers and those with loans in process.

Whether any or all of these changes will bring any certainty or predictability to BofA’s handling of loan modifications, short sales, and foreclosures is unclear at this time.  BofA has reported an increase of permanent modifications from November to December yet during that same period people in trial modifications declined.  Until we see any clear guidelines on what to expect when dealing with BofA, we encourage you to act early, connect with a Realtor, and know your options.

If you have specific questions 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 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 youre facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

As followers of my Blog know, I have long stated that our current market crash was caused by a lending industry taking advantage of a government deregulation intended to make home ownership available to more Americans. In a classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the deregulation allowed lenders to sell virtually any loan they created regardless of whether or not the borrower was qualified for the loan. This house of cards eventually crashed when original teaser rates re-set and millions of borrowers could no longer afford the loans.

In 2008, Congress created a Commission to investigate the cause of the crash and appointed Sacramentan, Phil Angelides, to head it. In a blistering report that followed 18 months of testimony and fact-gathering, Angelides and his Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission blamed a wide cast of characters for the epic meltdown, including executives of insurance giant AIG and Goldman Sachs and government policymakers like Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke. The report said human error created the crisis. The Report blamed mortgage lenders for the flood of risky subprime loans that ignored “a borrower’s ability to pay.” Wall Street investment banks recklessly packaged the loans into toxic securities that exposed the entire financial system to melt down, the report concludes.

The panel held four field hearings, all in communities that were among the hardest hit by the real estate crash: Sacramento, Las Vegas, Bakersfield and Miami. In Sacramento, commissioners heard about the Central Valley’s vulnerability to the housing price bubble. One witness testified that appraisers were pressured by lenders to make inflated appraisals so shaky loans would go through. The final report mentions Sacramento numerous times, noting that housing prices more than doubled in a five-year stretch.

All the while, government watchdogs were asleep. For more than 30 years, lawmakers and presidents bought into the free-market ethic backed by the likes of Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman. “The sentries were not at their posts,” the report said. However, following the release of the report, government officials lost no time in getting to finger-pointing. The crisis commission’s findings were caught up in immediate partisan bickering. While the report was endorsed by the six Democrats on the commission, the four Republicans refused to sign off on its conclusions.

At the press conference introducing the report, Mr. Angelides made no bones about where he stood on this question: This was an avoidable crisis, he said bluntly. As the report puts it, “The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. If only regulators had been willing to regulate; if only Wall Street had done proper due diligence on the mortgages it was securitizing; if only subprime companies had acted more honorably; if only the credit ratings agencies had said no when asked to slap triple-A ratings on subprime junk. If only, if only, if only”.

Now comes the real test of whether our leaders will put back in place the economic regulations necessary to prevent irresponsible lending while not stopping the economic recovery which is just beginning. We need to have a thriving lending system for our nation to continue to grow and prosper. But that lending system owes a duty to us all to act reasonably and responsibly… a duty sadly lacking in causing this market crash.

If you have specific questions about landlord-tenant law 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 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 youre facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

As we approach 2011, we look back on three years of economic disaster following the collapse of the real estate bubble. Clearly this bubble was the result of lenders making loans to unqualified borrowers. This increased competition among home buyers drove prices up… until buyers couldn’t afford the payments and the house of cards collapsed.  By 2008, programs such as Hope for Homeowners were calling on lenders to cut principal balances owed on upside-down loans to enable people to keep their homes. But the lenders wouldn’t cut, even after newly elected President Obama offered government help to pay for the cuts. So today we have a woefully unsuccessful loan modification program and foreclosures continue.

As reported in DSNews, foreclosures by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exceeding modifications by more than 2 to 1 and by now we all know about lenders’ rush through foreclosure processing by using “robo-signers”.  Now, some help may be on the way.  The New York Times reported that in October, the Attorneys General from all 50 States signed onto an agreement for an investigation of lender practices. The AGs say that there is an opportunity to fundamentally change the way banks deal with defaulting borrowers so that more people can stay in their homes by modifying their mortgages, and that they will take the time needed. “The large banks say they are doing everything they can to avoid foreclosure, but that is not the reality on the ground,” said Patrick Madigan, an assistant attorney general in Iowa who is a lead figure in the investigation. “The question is, Why?”  

Meanwhile, this month a group of top economists, academic leaders, and influential investors sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the heads of five federal regulatory agencies urging them to take the lead in setting national standards for mortgage loan servicers.  “Widely reported servicer fraud, whether in the foreclosure process or in the systematic assessment of illegal fees against homeowners, is…a serious problem,” the group said in the letter. To protect borrowers and investors alike, the group’s proposed standards would require servicers to provide loan modifications, including principal reductions, to address “reasonably foreseeable default” as long as the homeowner “can make a reasonable payment.” They also argue servicers should be held accountable for lost paperwork on loan modifications and for failing to suspend foreclosure when a homeowner is actively engaged in the loan modification process.

Will all of this activity be productive?  Only time will tell.  Historically, the government has been unwilling to interfere with contracts between lenders and borrowers.  But this “hands-off” approach brought us a real estate crash and a foreclosure mess that has disrupted the lives of millions of Americans with no real effort to solve the problem.  While no doubt any such National Foreclosure Reform will be promoted as helping homeowners, the underlying drive will be to restore security, transparency, and reliability to the financial system so that investors - those persons that put up the money so loans can be made - will regain confidence in the banking system enough to put their money at risk. 

Whether it be to help homeowners or help investors, either way we will all benefit from reforming the  current broken foreclosure system.  Watch here for further updates as this matter progresses. If you are impacted by this foreclosure problem, take the time to write your representatives in Congress and urge them to get behind this push for reform.

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 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 facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

It has now been nearly three years since the real estate market began unravelling.  Millions still struggle with over-encumbered properties and loss of income from the recession. Most economist predict that home prices may fall another 11% in 2011, as rising defaults crash with difficult to get purchase financing. Yet there is some good news for the diligent:

1.  Housing prices are really undervalued. Today’s pricing is based on distressed sales. No-one would sell if they had a choice. This means that in reality, housing prices are higher than the sales would indicate. DSNews reports that the analysts at Capitol Economics have concluded that house prices are now 14% to 17% undervalued relative to disposable income per capita.  This is a 30 year high in affordability!

2.  Mortgage Rates remain low.  Although there has been some upward movement, mortgage rates remain between 4.25% and 5%.  My own office manager just refinanced her home for 3.5%!  Incredible financing opportunities.  Qualifying may still remain a challenge. Hopefully the lenders have learned their lesson and will actually require that the borrower have the ability to pay.

3.  Foreclosures are slowing.  Due in part to the Robosigner scam, foreclosure starts have been slowing even though delinquencies remain high. November Notice of Default filings were down 9.3% in California and 31.7% in Washington.  Lenders may be starting to realize that they can recover more for their investors by negotiating than they would get from a foreclosure. 

4.  Junior lenders are more willing to take hits.  The problem in most short sales has not been first lenders; it has been junior lenders (2nds and 3rds) who would have a personal judgment claim against the borrower after a foreclosure. Of course, having a claim and collecting upon it are two very different things. In the past week, our attorneys at BPE law have successfully negotiated a $200,000 release for $17,000; complete releases for $0; $150,000 for $5,000; and we’re completing a $2.2 million commercial loan payoff for no more than $100,000.

So what should this mean to you?  If you’re in default, keep negotiating with your lenders. They may be more accepting of a loan modification or a short sale without recourse or contribution.  And get help from real estate professionals in your community. They speak the language of the lenders.

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 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 facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advise in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

We awake this November 3rd to a changed political climate nationwide as well as here in California.  Will this bring meaninful change to ease the housing crisis? That is not likely.  What is likely is that this election signals a return to the housing expectations we held before the real estate bubble arose. Hopefully this time either common sense or regualtory control will stop the Wall Street excesses that fueled that bubble. First a little history lesson.

The roots of the housing crisis actually started back in the 1970’s with the evolution of real estate investment gurus such as Robert Allen who’s book Nothing Down started a frenzy for buying real estate that continued to grow. The only constraint was qualifying for loans.  By the 1990’s, a push was on to open the “American Dream” of home ownership to everyone. But, if they couldn’t qualify for a loan, how were they going to buy a home? That was answered in the late 1990’s by Federal deregulation of the financial markets, opening up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the loans, and the creation of supposed insurance programs called “credit default swaps”.  Banks now were happy to lend because they could get the high-risk, “subprime loans” off their books and they had a ready supply of money through Wall Street investment firms which packaged these loans as securities and passed them off as safe investments. The problem was hat they were never safe. But, as long as there was a buyer, no-one cared.  So we ended up with the perversity of lenders offering nothing down, no payment required loans, to unemployed people who were destined to fail.  But the loans drove the demand higher and the prices higher and the sales and loan commissions higher, inflating the bubble.  Then came the crash.

By late 2006, loan defaults were increasing as original “teaser” interest rates reset to full payments that buyers could not afford. The bubble was cracking. By 2007, as defaults and foreclosures started skyrocketing, the housing bubble began cracking but this was still lost on Wall Street which did not realize (or had ignored) that these sub-prime loans now made up the majority of their investments. By 2008 however, Wall Street was in a panic as they realized that hundreds of billions of dollars of investments they had sold the American public was backed by worthless loans.  They had no money to operate and no more money to loan to banks to make more loans. The market collapsed and the entire economy was threatened.  In came the U.S. Treasury in 2008 with a series of bailouts and buy-ups to stop the damage. When the dust cleared, many Wall Street investment firms were gone, banks went under, and the American taxpayers were on the hook for 80% of the sub-prime loans which by now were held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The only thing left was to clear out the bad loans and that led to the housing and foreclosure mess that we’re still going through today.

So what should we expect going forward?  Here’s my thoughts on this:

1.   Don’t expect help from the Government - preserving bad loans is not on anyone’s agenda and with the increased Republican control nationwide, the push will be to strengthen the economy and provide incentives to create more jobs.

2.  Expect the pace of loan resolutions to increase - While loan modification success has been dismal, Government financial incentives for principal reduction kicked in October 1st and may improve these numbers. But again, preserving bad loans is not on the agenda.  I do expect short sale success to improve as lenders finally seem to be getting it that a sale yeilds a better return for their investors than a foreclosure.  But all those HELOC second loans may get in the way as they demand full recourse or substantial payoffs.  The most likely scenario is that foreclosures will increase as lenders seek to get what they can and move on.  We’re already seeing a faster recording of Default Notices, even by BofA.  Expect this to continue.

3.  Prices are not likely to rise soon - According to the US Census Bureau, in 1900 les than half of people owned their homes. By the start of the housing bubble in 1999, that number had increased to 66.9% and, at it’s bubble peak, the rate reached 69.2% nationwide and much higher in some States.  Today, that ownership number has returned to pre-bubble levels.  Over 18 million homes stand vacant or are in default.  This supply, plus harder-to-get loans, will keep a lid on any upward price pressure for many years. 

4.  Being a Tenant will no longer be a negative - For many of us, our adult lives have been directly influenced by housing promoters and cheap money that made us feel somehow inferior if we rented rather than owned. That is now changing.  As reported by Carrie Bay of DSNews.com,  The housing market is over-subsidized. Homeownership isn’t for everyone…. For decades, America has been “over-housed” and “over-consumed.” Not only is renting gaining ground as the most practical means of housing for a larger number of consumers, but some say it could also be the answer to keeping millions of struggling borrowers in their homes and stabilizing foreclosure-ridden communities.  Stephane Fitch of Forbes claims that the fading American Dream of home ownership is cause to rejoice: “Fact is, when you look at how much it costs to rent versus how much it costs to own housing in big cities across the U.S., you discover that the cost of renting is likely to be lower. Throw in the fact that rental leases only last a year and that in most places they can be broken if the the tenants move to another city in search for a job, and I see a very good case that America is stronger if more of us decline to own homes.”  So as we look forward, perhaps a re-defining of what the American Dream really means will be in order.

We still will have problems to deal with over the next several years as this housing crisis continues. So, if you or your clients are upside down on a loan and facing foreclosure, this is a time to act to seek that modification or complete that short sale.  If you are facing a lender lawsuit, get representation and put up a challenge.

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 facing a lender lawsuit, 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.

On October 3rd, I wrote about the stoppage of foreclosures across the country as a result of the discovery lender’s use of “robo-signers” in preparing fraudulent foreclosure documents.  As expected, the lenders’ pro-active stoppage removed any pressure on the Federal government to impose a foreclosure moratorium and soon, as the lenders realized that there would not be any consequences, the foreclosures resumed in full.  But as they may soon come to learn, there are consequences in life when we do something wrong.

Although the Fed has not acted, the Attorneys General of many States have stepped up and are threatening criminal prosecutions of lenders. As reported in today’s Wall Street Journal, Ohio’s Attorney General has criticized a number of banks and loan-servicing companies, including Wells Fargo & Co.; Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage; Bank of America Corp.; and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Mr. Cordray said the banks are trying to paper over fraud committed in foreclosures with temporary fixes that don’t address underlying problems in the banks’ practices: “It is not acceptable for a party who believes they submitted false court documents to merely replace those documents. Wells Fargo and any other banks are not simply allowed a ‘do-over”…..”The banks are committing fraud on the court, essentially perjury, and then saying ‘Whoops! You caught me! Here’s some different evidence and use that instead.”   In an interview Friday, Mr. Cordray said the banks would “be well-served to work out a settlement with the borrowers to modify the loans and work out payments.”

Here in California, Attorney General Jerry Brown called on lenders to stop foreclosures while the robo-signer issue is investigated. But no stoppage has been ordered. Further, he has announced that California has joined a coalition of 50 attorneys general and dozens of state banking regulators in a multi-state effort to demand that lenders find solutions to serious and potentially widespread problems in the foreclosure process across the country.  This might signal a concerted effort to push lenders to modify loans as a way of possibly avoiding legal action against them for fraud.

The big question for everyone is whether this is a sign of real action at the State level to assist upside-down property owners or whether this is just election year rhetoric.  With the election tomorrow, perhaps we’ll learn more after the push for votes goes away.

Of course the problem for most people seeking modification will be finding help with the modification process. Due to the extent of loan modification scams nationwide, most States (including California) have essentially outlawed loan modifiers. Jerry Brown has called consumer fraud prevention a top priority but by this he specifically means “Loan Modification Fraud” not fraud by lenders.  For example, in October he filed a $60 million lawsuit to shut down companies offering “forensic audits” of loans which might reveal defective or fraudulent loan docs.  Without private sector assistance, those seeking loan modifications will be at the mercy of whatever the lender’s representatives tell them. That may not necessarily be truthful or in the borrower’s best interest.

Meanwhile don’t expect anything from Washington. Presidential advisor Elizabeth Warren has been charged with setting up a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Although the title is encouraging, she has already suggested the agency may not become deeply entangled with the issue. She said, State attorney generals likely will take the lead in dealing with the latest U.S. foreclosure mess.  So to continue, don’t look for help from Washington.

So, if you or your clients are upside down on a loan and facing foreclosure, this is a time to act to seek that modification or complete that short sale.  If you are facing a lender lawsuit, get representation and put up a challenge. The lenders’ hope with these fraudulent lawsuits was that they would win without challenge. I’s up to you to stop them and the Courts and State Attorneys General may be willing to help.

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 facing a lender lawsuit, 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.