Part of what created this economic collapse was the willingness of lenders to make loans virtually to anyone without any real checking to see if they could really afford the loan. But with this drop of standards also came a drop in diligence in handling the loan paperwork properly. The reality is that millions of loans are legally defective and, in some cases, may not be collectible.  This has given rise to a new wave of scams by so called “forensic auditors” who, for a large up-front fee,  promise to search the loan documents for defects but more often would take the money and run.  As readers of my Blog know, I’ve opposed such approaches because, even if they found defects in the loan, the legal remedy for Truth in Lending (TILA) violations was rescission: the lender gives you back what you paid but you have to give back the loan proceeds.  This simply didn’t work.  But now, there may be new strategies available through this process that can potentially stop foreclosure, stop judgments, and maybe even force a loan modification.

I recently attended a seminar put on by a Florida company called AmStar which is in the forefront nationally of assisting lawyers in challenging lenders.  The critical issue is not TILA but rather the underlying changes in ownership of the loan and security: 1) Who really owns the loan?  2) Who really can foreclose (it’s not MERS); 3) Do the Loan Agreements conflict with HAMP and HAFA and specific State laws requiring good faith efforts to resolve loan disputes?  Courts throughout the Country are starting to rule that lenders cannot foreclose if their loan documents or handling are defective.  If the lender can’t foreclose, they’ll want to settle and that could mean a principal reduction modification enabling the borrower to keep their home.

Determining whether a borrower’s loan is defective requires several steps: 

First, a Qualified Written Request (QWR) should be sent to the loan servicer to obtain their loan documents and payment and handling history. Recent law changes require a lender to acknowledge receipt of the Request in 5 days and actually send the responsive documents within 30 days (15 day extension possible). 

Second, have the loan documents reviewed by a qualified and certified auditor to determine if defects exist and whether they are minor or fatal to enforcement of the loan.  Beware of “auditors” charging upwards of $5,000 for this service. A good residential home audit will cost approximately $2,000.

Third, if the loan documents and audit results indicate that the loan is not enforceable, then you may have good cause to get a legal injunction to stop a pending foreclosure and possibly even beat the lenders in Court. Of course, most homeowners can’t afford the legal cost of a protracted litigation. But most lenders also don’t want a Court to dig in to the validity of their loan practices. The result is a greatly increased interest in settlement which can be a win-win for everyone, especially for the homeowner that gets to keep their home at an affordable payment rate.

Are these strategies for you?  Every person’s situation is different. The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice.  If you are upside-down on your loan(s), 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.

First a little history.  A great many banks are insured by the FDIC, the national program designed to protect depositors’ assets. During the height of the real estate bubble, lenders were giving out loans without really any care for whether the borrower really could pay them back.  When the market crashed starting in 2006, foreclosures skyrocketed, banks lost their source of income and capacity to operate, ie: they “failed”. When a bank fails, FDIC steps in and takes control. This is what happened in 2008 with the collapse of Indymac. But FDIC does not want to run the bank. First they took control then found a buyer: OneWest Bank.  OneWest was created by a handful of very wealthy investors solely to take over Indymac from the FDIC.  What made this an attractive investment was the unique “Shared Loss Agreement” between Indymac and OneWest wherein OneWest purchased Indymac’s loans for between 58-70% of the balance owed but if there was a foreclosure, FDIC would pay 80-95% of the losses on the original balance. It is not rocket science to figure out that under this deal, OneWest could make far more money from a foreclosure than they could from a modification or short sale.  To learn more about this history, read Patrick Pulatie’s blog: http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-government-abetteded-fraud-why-indymaconewest-always-forecloses/

So what does this all mean to you, the upside-down property owner: If you’re dealing with OneWest Bank or Indymac, don’t expect help because it may not be there.  Note also that FDIC has entered these Shared Loss Agreements with over 50 different lenders and servicers, although apparently none are as uncooperative as OneWest. Is there anything you can do to force them?  Possibly. First - write your Congressman for help. It is certainly unlikely that our legislature intended this perverse result when they approved the FDIC operations. This may put on pressure.  Second - use the Courts to get relief. Many States, such as California, require that a lender negotiate in good faith to attempt a resolution before commencing a foreclosure. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the FDIC-OneWest Shared Loss Agreement requires OneWest to “undertake, reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts”.  A judge or jury can decide if OneWest has met their responsibilities. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Faced with a legal challenge or Congressional pressure or both, OneWest may fix your problem to make you go away even if they are unwilling to change their policies.

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 having problems communicating with OneWest or Indymac, 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.

For the past three years, most people struggling with upside-down loans were those who bought their homes in the early to mid-2000’s with teaser loans such as negative adjustable, or pay-option ARMS which allowed them to qualify for the loans based upon “stated income” and a starting interest rate that virtually guaranteed a loan.  But then, as the teaser rates ended and interest adjusted, borrowers could no longer afford the payments.  For most of these borrowers, short sales work well because they don’t have any substantial assets and, unless they refinanced, they may have no deficiency liability (at least in CA). 

But now the profile of the upside-down owner is changing.  Today’s troubled owner is more likely to have a decent loan but they’ve lost their job or otherwise been impacted by the recession.  These owners may have lots of other assets but they can’t afford to keep paying for the negative cash-flow on the over-encumbered second home or rental property.  In California, these loans generally have deficiency recourse and, if a lender pursued a deficiency judgment, they could reasonably collect some or all of the deficiency from the borrower.  If the borrower attempted a short sale, they would have to disclose their assets as a part of the hardship package and, in doing so, they would be letting the lender know: 1) they have assets to contribute to payoff a short sale deficiency; and 2) if the short sale fails, they would be a good candidate for a “judicial foreclosure” which would allow a lender to get a deficiency judgment.  Even though that process could take over 2 years, the collectability could make it worthwhile for the lender to pursue.

Faced with this reality, it can be better for an otherwise solvent borrower to let the property go to foreclosure and, by not disclosing assets, have a better chance of avoiding the liability. In California, most lenders will foreclose through “non-judicial foreclosure” (also called Trustee Sale) because it is both cheap and fast but they give up any right to deficiency judgment.  Without knowledge that a borrower has other assets, the lender is most likely to take this path instead of the long, expensive, and generally non-productive judicial foreclosure route.  So, strategically, for the solvent but upside-down borrower, it may be better to walk away than short sale.

Of course, everyone’s situation is unique and there is no single best solution. The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Determining what to do involves consideration of judgment risk, tax factors, and credit and career impacts as well as the type of property and number of loans involved.  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.

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.

1.  What to Expect - a lawsuit is simply a claim by one party (the Plaintiff) against another (the Defendant), which is filed in a court, asking a Judge to Order the Defendant to do something. For example, the lender sues the debtor seeking a Judgment ordering the debtor to pay the remaining debt. In many cases, the Plaintiff will not be the actual lender who made the loan. Collection companies are buying loans from lenders for pennies on the dollar then suing the borrowers for the full amount.  One company, Cohen & Slamowitz in New York, has actually automated the process and is filing 80,000 lawsuits a year!  The lawsuit has two parts: the Summons and the Complaint.  The Complaint states the facts as to why the Plaintiff claims they are entitled to a Judgment against the Defendant. The Summons is the Order for the Defendant to respond to the Complaint within a certain amount of time which varies from State to State. In California it is 30 days.

2.  How to Respond - Plaintiffs hope that Defendants will ignore the Summons and fail to file a response, usually an Answer, within the allowed time. If so, the Plaintiff will quickly get a Default Judgment and can start pursuing the collection by attaching the Defendant’s property and garnishing their wages. This is the worst possible result for a Defendant because it is giving up without a fight.  Instead, upon being served with a Summons and Complaint, the debtor should get together with an Attorney and determine how best to respond.  Often, the first response is attacking the Complaint through a legal process called a Demurrer. There are many grounds for this such as:  (a)  the Plaintiff doesn’t own the loan and therefore has no right to file the lawsuit;  (b) the lawsuit is barred by various laws of the State (in California we have several related “anti-deficiency” laws);  and (c) the Complaint is defective.  At the same time, the attorney will start the Discovery process of compelling the Plaintiff to produce copies of every document they are relying on in filing the lawsuit. While the Demurrer could actually make the lawsuit go away, it generally won’t. What it will do is force the Plaintiff to spend time and money responding which is the last thing they really want to do. So it starts the negotiation for Settlement.  

3.  Settlement Negotiations - At the start of a lawsuit, the Plaintiff wants to collect everything and the Defendant wants to pay nothing. While both sides want to win at trial, only one side will. Settlement eliminates that risk and avoids the heavy financial and emotional costs of lengthy litigation, usually well over a year.  In Sacramento, CA where we are based, 98% of lawsuits will settle before trial. The hard part is reaching an agreement. Inevitably the Plaintiff will feel they got too little and the Defendant will feel they paid too much, but both will agree that the settlement is better than the alternative of continuing in litigation. There is no standard percentage that determines settlement. Rather, it is a complex evaluation of the Plaintiff’s evidence, the Defendant’s defenses and financial capacity, and the likely outcomes. For example, earlier this year a lender sued our client for $280,000 owed on an equity loan after a foreclosure. The Lender settled for $16,000. In several others, Plaintiffs have dismissed the lawsuits when faced with our defenses. And still others go forward.

4.  Going to Trial - If Settlement fails, then at some point the Complaint will go to trial at which time the Judge and/or jury will hear all the testimony and see all the evidence and then determine who wins and who loses. The winner gets a Judgment and can try to collect from the loser.  In lawsuits relating to loans, the biggest risk is the award of attorney fees. Most loan documents allow the winner to be awarded what they spent on attorney fees and legal costs. This can be bigger than the loan amount and it generally is far more than an upside-down debtor could ever afford to pay.

5.  The Role of Bankruptcy - The Bankruptcy laws of the United States are designed to give an insolvent debtor a “fresh start” if there is no way they can pay their debts. While some attorneys would recommend filing Bankruptcy if faced with a lender lawsuit, this is not necessarily the best solution for everyone. For example: First, other than this bad debt, the defendant may have other assets they want to keep; Second, by responding to the lawsuit, the defendant may be able to settle the debt  or avoid it entirely; Third, Bankruptcy will stay on the debtor’s credit for 7-10 years; and Fourth, the defendant may not even qualify for Bankruptcy. So, while it is one solution, Bankruptcy is not always the best solution.

The information presented in this Article is not to be taken as legal advice. Every person’s situation is different.  If you are facing a lender lawsuit, do not ignore it. 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.

What has gotten lost in all the cheering is the reality that SB 1178 will not go into effect until June 11, 2011. It is intended to stop lenders from bringing deficiency lawsuits against borrowers after that date. Nothing stops lenders from bringing deficiency actions before that date where they would have such a right under current law. In most circumstances, these would be lawsuits brought by “junior” lenders whose security gets wiped out by a senior lender’s foreclosure.  A lot of these are being filed right now.

A lot could change before the final form of this measure gets through the Legislature and is signed by the Governor. Presently the Bill is in House committees and the next hearing will be late this month.  Various challenges and clarifications are being discussed and there is no certainty at this point when or if this Bill will get passed or what a final form will look like.  We’ll keep you informed as it progresses.

Meanwhile, if you are facing a lender lawsuit or if you have specific questions about your liability, 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.

1)  A Buyer and Seller entered a Short Sale Agreement to which Wells Fargo consented as long as they completed the sale by May 31st.  Everything went well and the Buyer obtained his financing by mid-May and was ready to close escrow. However, on May 11th, Wells Fargo breached their own short sale consent and foreclosed.  They admitted this was a mistake and, even though a fix was easy because they ended up with the property, they have refused. Their only suggestion was that the Buyer could attempt to buy it when Wells Fargo puts it back on the market.  It apparently doesn’t matter to Wells Fargo that the Buyer loses the money he spent pursuing the purchase; the Agent loses the sale commission they earned; and the Seller suffers greater credit damage with a foreclosure on their record. And of course, Wells Fargo’s own investors will likely lose more in an REO re-sale. The Buyer, Seller, and Agent have now filed suit against Wells Fargo to force them to rescind the foreclosure and honor the Short Sale Agreement and the title to the property has been clouded with a Notice of Pending Action (”Lis Pendens”) stopping any re-sale.  We’ll keep you informed as this progresses.

2.   In another more incredible action, Wells Fargo has actually filed a lawsuit against a Borrower without even foreclosing!  In California (and most States), a lender who makes a loan which is secured by a lien against the real estate must foreclose first before they have any right to pursue any claim against a borrower for a deficiency. This is called the “Security First Rule”. In this case, Wells Fargo made a home equity loan to a property owner which was secured with a Deed of Trust against the property. The owner subsequently defaulted on the loan. But, instead of foreclosing, Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit against the borrower, failed to identify in the suit that the loan was secured with the real estate, and instead have treated this like an unsecured personal loan. When confronted with this breach of California’s real estate laws, Wells Fargo (through their attorney) has refused to dismiss the lawsuit and comply with the law.  While this reaction demonstrates a very troubling arrogance, it is equally troubling that their attorneys would knowingly violate California law.  Sadly, in this case, the property owner cannot afford to challenge Wells Fargo’s actions in Court.

There is no question that these are tough times for lenders as well as borrowers. The lenders created a house of cards by making loans that should never have been made to borrowers who could never have afforded them if they were priced according to economic reality. It could only have worked if real estate prices continued to climb forever. But the real estate economy never works that way. Booms are always followed by busts usually every 6-10 years. The lenders knew this even if the gullible borrowers did not. 

This reality doesn’t excuse borrowers from defaulting even if it was foreseeable. The laws on breach of contract are clear… don’t pay and you’ll be foreclosed. But the borrowers distress certainly doesn’t give the lenders such as Wells Fargo any legal right to disregard the law simply because they think the borrower can’t afford to stop them.  It is exactly this arrogance that has caused Americans to attack Wall Street for its greed and lack of concern for the damage caused to its investors.  In the lending industry, Countrywide paved the way for the economy’s collapse by promoting subprime loans.  Wells Fargo in contrast acted responsibly and maintained their reputation for sound lending. Now however, Wells Fargo’s apparent lack of concern for the law may undermine not only its reputation and further damage its borrowers, but may also promote a broader distrust of the lending industry at a time when trust and credibility are needed most. 

We’ll keep you posted as these and other similar cases move forward. Meanwhile, if you’ve been challenged with a wrongful foreclosure or if you have specific questions about your liability, 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.

I have argued that the 1st definition controls based upon the following statements in the IRS Publication 4681 concerning Cancellation of Debt. In that document, the IRS defines Qualified Personal Residence Indebtedness as: “any mortgage you took out to buy, build, or substantially improve your main home. It also must be secured by your main home. Qualified principal residence indebtedness also includes any debt secured by your main home that you used to refinance a mortgage you took out to buy, build, or substantially improve your main home, but only up to the amount of the old mortgage principal just before the refinancing.”  The IRS then goes on to define “Main Home” as: “the home where you ordinarily live most of the time. You can have only one main home at any one time.”   Given this definition, I do not see how one could identify their Main Home as being anything other than where they live now.  This supports the argument that you must live there to get the debt forgiveness tax relief.    But, that may not be as clear as it sounds.

In a 2007 Publication on the tax impacts of foreclosure, the California Franchise Tax Board defines the taxpayer’s principal residence as “where they have lived for at least two of the past five years”. However, at that point, the FTB was talking about the possible capital gains liability from a foreclosure and for that purpose, the 2 of 5 year Rule does apply.

All of the commentarors on this issue look to U.S. Code Section 121 - Exclusion of Gain from Sale of Principal Residence - which provides: “Gross income shall not include gain from the sale or exchange of property if, during the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property has been owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer’s principal residence for periods aggregating 2 years or more”.  So, does this only concern Capital Gains Tax or does it include Debt Forgiveness Tax? 

We get some clarity from the language of the actual law: “The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007″ which states at Section 2.5: “principal residence’ has the same meaning as when used in section 121″. ie: the capital gains definition does apply. This was reaffirmed in 2008 when Congress passed the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008″ which created the TARP bailout program for banks and extended the operative term of the Debt Relief Act to December 31, 2012. The joint committee report for the EESA states that the meaning of personal residence for purposes of the QPRI exclusion is the same as in Section 121.

So, what should we conclude from all this?  It does appear that the intent of Congress in passing these laws is that a foreclosure is considered to be a “sale” and the definition of “Principal Residence” shall be the 2 of 5 year Rule set forth in U.S. Code Sec. 121, not the Main Home definition that the IRS appears to be using.  It also means that there may remain an ambiguity in the law that has yet to be defined conclusively. Arguably, the IRS could disallow an exclusion from Debt Forgiveness Tax when the debtor was not living in the home at the time of sale.  Will they do so?  We don’t know yet.  What we do know is that if you need the 2 of 5 year definition to apply to you, be sure to get competent advice from an accountant or CPA that you trust and who knows these issues.

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

A.  LENDER ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF RECOURSE:

1)   It is a Modification not a Release - A short sale is in effect a modification of the terms of the loan.  The lender has agreed to release their lien on the borrowers property so the property can be sold.  The lender agrees to do this without getting paid in full.  Arguably, the Short Sale agreement only modifies the terms referenced in the agreement. Unless the short sale agreement expressly waives recourse against the borrower for the unpaid balance, the lender may argue that they still possess the right to collect on the deficiency after the short sale is completed. 

2.  Unfair to penalize lender if Borrower is otherwise liable - In California, some loans are non-recourse such as a loan obtained to buy the home you live in. However, these “anti-deficiency” protections kick in when there is a foreclosure. These rules might not apply in a voluntary transfer such as a short sale. When there are no such protections, ie: non-purchase money or refinance or investor loan, the lender could have recourse against the borrower through the foreclosure method used. So, lenders would argue it is not fair to deny them the recourse that the borrower already agreed to in the loan.

B.    BORROWER ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECOURSE

1.   Short Sale is an “Accord and Satisfaction” - The short sale is inherently an agreement for resolution of a dispute between the borrower and the lender as to how much must the borrower pay.  In completing the short sale and receiving money they otherwise would not have received, they have arguable settled all claims. The “Accord” is the agreement; the “Satisfaction” is the money the lender received.

2.  Seeking Deficiency Violates the “Single Action Rule” - California only allows a lender one shot at collecting a debt. Arguably, the negotiation of the short sale and the lender’s acceptance of money from the Buyer is a collection action. If so, then the lender would be legally barred from filing a lawsuit against the borrower to collect anything else.

3.  Seeking Deficiency Violates the “Anti-Waiver Rule” - California real estate law provides that, if there is a default, the lender must take the security first (foreclose on the property) before going after the borrower for anything else.  There are only a few exceptions to this Rule which could allow a lender to “waive” the security and sue the buyer, ie: such as bringing hazardous waste onto the property; or destroying the property’s value by stripping out the plumbing or electrical systems.  These conditions do not exist in a short sale. Yet arguably what the lenders are doing is waiving the security to allow the short sale to be completed. If that is in fact a legal “waiver”, then the lender may be legally barred from coming after the borrower for a deficiency.

4.  No “Consideration” for waiving or modifying - Any contract or any modification requires that there be an equal trade of benefits and burdens. The borrower gets the benefit of the loans to buy the property but also gets the burden of having to repay what they received.  The value of what is exchanged by each of the parties is called the “legal consideration”. When only one side gets a benefit, there is what is called a “failure of consideration” and the contract may not be enforceable.  Arguably, this same requirement exists in a short sale:  the lender is getting money now and that’s a benefit but what is the benefit to the borrower?  They’re losing their property: that’s not a benefit;  they’re getting no money out of the deal: that’s not a benefit; they’re going to get taxed on any debt forgiveness: that’s not a benefit;  If the lender does have a right to pursue deficiency recourse against them, that’s definately not a benefit.  So, what benefit does the borrower get out of a short sale that would be sufficient consideration fore remaining liable for a deficiency?  Not much, if anything at all.  Arguably then, if the consideration is insufficient, then the lender’s right to waive the security and pursue a deficiency should fail for lack of consideration.

5.  Additional Arguments - Creative attorneys will find a fertile field of additional legal arguments to be raised in defending borrowers against lender deficiency claims. These can include a) the loan should never have been made; and b) the lenders caused the crash, why should they profit from it.

Who’s arguments prevail will be determined in the Courtrooms across our Country in the next few years to come. Initially rulings will be made by Judges in the local courts and they could vary greatly. In time, these inconsistent rulings will be challenged in the Courts of Appeal until a clear legal answer becomes apparent. Of course, Congress could pass a law and give us an answer now but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.  Meanwhile Lenders will seek to put language in their Short Sale Consent Agreements requiring the borrower to agree to deficiency liability

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/

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/.