The sad reality of HAFA is that it effectively gives the lenders what they wanted… a politically correct reason to deny modifications (which they don’t want to do) and a faster way of getting the existing owners out (which they do want to do). So, for upside-down owners, there’s no help in HAFA.  But for our economy, the results may be even worse.

Today’s real estate market, especially in California, is operating on an artificial economy.  The lenders are holding back putting all of their foreclosed properties on the market. This keeps the supply down and keeps prices up.  The lenders could put more properties on the market but that increase in supply would cause prices to fall since demand by buyers is not growing. The result of this is that the lenders have been slowing down the foreclosure process so they don’t get more properties that they’ll just hold back.  But since all of these must eventually get sold, this means that it will be many years before our real estate economy is not driven by the lender’s inventory of foreclosed homes. And, thanks to HAFA, it may now get much worse.

Under the rules of HAFA, all lenders that participate in the HAMP program must participate in HAFA. This means that if a lender denies a homeowner a modification under HAMP or the modification fails or is not accepted, the lender must offer the homeowner a short sale or a deed in lieu of foreclosure and our government (we the taxpayers) will pay the lenders and borrowers to participate.  This will speed up the change of ownership.  But what will be the effect on the already over-supplied real estate economy?

According to the lending industry information service, Mortgage News Daily, as of the end of 2009, only 4.3% of all HAMP modifications resulted in permanent loan modifications. Over a million trial modifications are in process. Unless the permanent modification numbers increase dramatically, we could be facing an additional 950,000 short sales and foreclosures coming on the market.  This would be a disaster as these get added to the already over-supply driving down the values of property. Existing buyers, investors, and lenders would be scared away from an unstable market and the problems in the economy would become even worse.

Is there any solution?  Well if the objective is to help people keep their homes through loan modification, then there needs to be a way to compel lenders to reduce principal amounts owed. If lenders continue to refuse, then Congress should pass the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Reform which the Senate shut down last year. Alternatively, compel lenders (particularly BofA) to waive deficiency recourse so that everyone can move on.

Sadly, there remained no Hope for Homeowners in that program and Making Home Affordable has not made homes more affordable. HAFA gives up on the hope of helping owners stay and instead will only help owners go. Unfortunately, this may hurt us all.

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

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

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

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

A short sale involves four separate contractual agreements:

1.   THE LOAN(s) - A loan is a contract between the borrower and the lender made up of a promissory note (the promises to pay the loan back) and a security agreement (pledging the property as security for repayment). Depending upon the laws of the particular state, the lender may be able to get a money judgment against the borrower if the loan does not get paid in full. A short sale arises when the Seller owes more on the loan than the selling price of the property. Generally, the seller/borrower is seeking to get the lender to release any liability claims on the shortage.

2.  THE LISTING AGREEMENT - this is a contract between the seller and a real estate broker. The seller hires the broker to locate a buyer and sell the property. If successful, the seller pays a commission to the broker. In a short sale, success is also contingent upon the lender agreeing to the short sale but the conditions of that consent are often not spelled out.

3. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT - this is a contract between the seller and a buyer setting forth all of the obligations of both parties. A short-sale form of this contract adds a contingency for the lender to consent to the sale. Again, typically the terms of that consent are not spelled out.

4. CONSENT AGREEMENT - this is a contract between the seller and the lender stating the conditions under which the lender will agree to the short sale. Since the short sale changes the obligations under the loans, consent by the lender and seller to these changes is necesary for the short sale to close. The most important issue for both seller and lender is whether the lender will have recourse against the seller for any loan amount not paid in the short sale. This contract is where this issue is decided.

 Every contract comes with what is called an “implied promise” that all parties to the contract will act in “good faith” and with “fair dealing” in carrying out their obligations. Thus, at a basic level, the borrower must pay the loan; the broker must find the buyer; the buyer must be ready to buy; and the seller must be ready to sell.  What happens however if the lender demands recourse or more payment against the seller?  Can the buyer force the seller to sell?  Alternatively, can the buyer and agents collect money damages and commissions from the seller if the seller refuses to sell?  The best answer is…look to the contracts.  Does the seller have any good faith basis upon which to refuse to sell if the lender demands recourse?

As readers of my Blogs know from prior articles, the right of a lender to get recourse against a borrower if they’re not paid in full depends upon the language of the loan documents, how and when the loan was made, and the application of real estate law in the State. Rarely does a loan document ever expressly state that it is “non-recourse”. Instead, nearly all loans are written as being “recourse” even though the lender’s actual rights to recourse will be governed by the above factors. This is where the conflict with short sales arises. A lender has no obligation to take a penny less than they are owed in order to enable a seller to sell their property yet that is what the seller typically wants. This conflict is resolved - or not - in the Consent Agreement. If resolved, the sale goes through. If not, the sale dies and the property likely goes to foreclosure. So the key question, is when must the seller consent or, alternatively, when can the seller walk-away from the short sale without liability?  The legal answer should be found in determining if the seller acted with “good faith and fair dealing”.

For example, in California if a borrower gets a loan to purchase a 1 to 4 unit property that they live in, this is called a “purchase money loan” and the lender has no recourse against the borrower if the loan is not paid in full, regardless of what the loan documents may say.  In contrast, if that same borrower later refinances the property, the new loans are not purchase money and therefore the lender would generally have recourse.  Unfortunately in most short sales, this distinction is not considered in drafting the Listing Agreement or Purchase and Sale Agreement. And so, the parties are blindly proceeding expecting the lender to give up recourse and only then considering the impact if the lender refuses.  This could make the seller and possibly the seller’s broker liable for damages if the seller refuses to accept a short sale with recourse.

Since the seller/borrower should know up front when the lender has recourse rights in their loan, the seller really does not have a right to be surprised by a recourse demand in the short sale agreement. Therefore, ”good faith and fair dealing” reasonably would require them to complete the short sale with recourse (if it couldn’t be negotiated down).  Refusing to do so could make them liable for financial damages to the buyer and the buyer maybe even be able to force the sale.  In such situations, it is reasonable that the seller’s broker and agents could similarly be liable for the buyer’s damages (and the commission of the buyer’s broker) for putting the property on the market with the implied representation that if the lender accepts the short sale buyer, the seller will close the sale.

In contrast, where there is no recourse in the loan (such as in the purchase money loan referenced above), the seller could reasonably claim that they were acting in good faith and fair dealing in rejecting a short sale consent agreement that gives the lender more recourse in the short sale than they would have in foreclosure. Is the seller right in this claim?  Well, on the one hand, it was not unreasonable for the seller to expect that the lender would not increase the seller’s liability merely because it is a short sale. On the other hand, in a voluntary transaction such as a short sale, the lender is not bound by what it could do if it foreclosed.

So, my conclusion is: “Yes”, the Seller can be liable to the Buyer in walking away from a short sale.  More importantly, since the seller’s broker is providing the Listing Agreement and advising the seller on the contents of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the brokers - both seller’s and buyer’s - owe a fiduciary duty to their clients to provide for this type of contingency.  At the simplest level, the Listing Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement should reference the conditions under which the seller will be bound to accept the lender’s Consent Agreement.  If the Seller is to be able to walk away if the lender demands recourse, the Seller’s broker should make sure that that contingency exists in the Purchase and Sale Agreement.  Similarly, the buyer’s broker should make an early evaluation of the recourse on the seller’s loans and so advise the buyer of the walk-away risks before the buyer invests a lot of time and money.

Short sales are hard enough for everyone and are stressed with the uncertainty of the lender’s response to the seller’s short sale request.  It is within the diligence ability of all of the parties to have a better understanding of how the seller will likely respond if the lender demands recourse before the Purchase and Sale Agreement is made.  If the parties took this step, a lot of anguish, frustration, and legal liability could reasonably be avoided.

If you have specific questions about your liability, short sales, foreclosure, or any legal issue, feel free to contact me at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or 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/.

The content of this Article is for general information purposes only and is not to be relied upon as legal advice. Be sure to consult a knowledgeable real estate attorney in your State for advice on your particular situation.

As set forth in full on IRS Publication 4681 “Cancelled Debts, Foreclosures, Repossessions, and Abandonments” http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4681.pdf, Insolvency is determined by first listing the fair market value of all of your liabilities immediately before the debt forgiveness event (short sale or foreclosure). Next you list the fair market value of all of your assets at the same point in time.  Next, you subtract your assets from your liabilities. If the result is zero or less, ie: your liabilities exceed your assets, then you are insolvent.  Page 6 of Publication 4681 has the actual worksheet you can use to make this calculation.  Once the insolvency is determined, you report this on your tax return through the use of IRS Form 982 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f982.pdf. 

California appears to draw it’s insolvency determination from the IRS Form 982. California’s taxing agency is the Franchise Tax Board (”FTB”). As stated in the FTB Tax News dated February, 2010 http://www.ftb.ca.gov/professionals/taxnews/2010/February/Article_8.shtml “if the loan is recourse indebtedness and the debtor incurs cancellation of indebtedness income (CODI), IRC Section 108 provides certain exceptions in recognition of that income. One of the exceptions applies where the taxpayer was insolvent (total liabilities exceed total assets) when the CODI was realized. The exclusion only applies up to the amount of insolvency, i.e., to the extent the liabilities exceed the FMV of the assets”. However, California law does not conform to all of the provisions currently available in IRC Section 108.

The key is this:  If you are an upside-down borrower facing a debt forgiveness tax as a result of a short sale or foreclosure, you may be liable for debt forgiveness tax and may queslify for the insolvency exclusion. Be certain to get tax advice from a qualified professional who can look at your specific situation and advise you on how these rules apply to you.  This Article is solely intended to give you an introduction to what might be available for you but you should not rely on it to apply to your financial circumstances.

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

Here are the current rules:

1. FORMER OWNER IS OCCUPANT - If the former owner remains as an occupant of the property after a foreclosure, the new owner must give that person only a 3 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT. The theory is that the former owner knew the foreclosure was coming so they should have made arrangements to move.

2. OCCUPANT IS RELATED TO FORMER OWNER - If the occupant is related to the former owner, ie: child, parent, or spouse, and the former owner is not an occupant, then the new owner must give the occupants a 60 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT. In theory related parties should be aware of what is going on. Even so, this change gives these parties more time than they had before.

3.  UNRELATED OCCUPANTS ON PERIODIC TENANCY - If the occupant is not a former owner or related to the former owner and is on a periodic tenancy such as month-to-month (not a Lease), then the new owner must give the occupants a 90 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT. The thought here is that periodic tenants are innocent victims who may be surprised by the foreclosure and will need more time to find a new place to live.

4.  UNRELATED OCCUPANTS ON LEASES -  If the occupant is not a former owner or related to the former owner and is on a fixed-term Lease (such as 6 months, one year, etc.), then the new owner cannot terminate the occupant’s tenancy UNTIL THE END OF THE LEASE TERM unless the new owner intends to occupy the property themseves in which time the new owner must give the occupants a 90 DAY NOTICE TO QUIT. The thought here is that while Lease tenants are innocent victims who may be surprised by the foreclosure, they contracted for a specific term and had no right to expect a longer tenancy. However, as set forth below, they may have to actually pay rent to get the benefit. Despite this however, since the foreclosure extinguished the Lease, the new owner can treat this resulting tenancy as a periodic month-to-month tenancy if they intend to move-in.

Much of the new requirements arise under President Obama’s “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009’’ which was contained in the ‘‘Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009’’, which was signed into law by the President on May 20, 2009. California amended its laws effective January 1, 2010 in compliance. While any new law becomes a fertile ground for disputes, this one presents an interesting issue concerning tenants on leases seeking to stay the duration of the lease. The Act defines a “bone fide lease” as being a lease which requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property. But does this mean that the rent must be paid? That remains unclear. If so, this would seem punitive considering that a tenant without a lease would get a 90 day notice with no obligation to pay. But is it really fair to the new owner to let someone live their longer than 90 days without paying? Perhaps the intent was only to establish that the lease was real…not to provide an ability for the new owner to collect the rent. But with no payment, who would ever want to bid at a foreclosure sale? Of course, it It will be up to the court’s to decide who’s interpretation is correct.

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.

Private Mortgage Insurance (generally called PMI) is typically required by a lender anytime you borrow more than 80% of the purchase value of the property being acquired. In essence, you buy an insurance policy to protect the lender from the increased risk of loss with a higher loan-to-value ratio.  So you pay and the lender is the beneficiary. Here’s where it gets tricky.  An insurance policy is a contract between you and the insurance company for the benefit of a beneficiary. Like any agreement, the rights of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract and the laws of the State.  You pay for the policy in order to get the benefit of the lender giving you the loan… not for the benefit of avoiding a deficiency if there is a default (although this may be a reasonable belief if it is even considered at the time of the loan).  Thus, the policy may protect the lender from a deficiency and protect you from the lender’s claims but the policy may also provide that you must reimburse the insurer for any such payouts.  This is similar to your auto insurance which may pay a damaged third party for injuries suffered in an accident which you caused. The policy pays the injured party and you may have to reimburse the insurer for all or a part of what they pay out.  Again, the language of the insurance contract governs the rights of the parties.

But in the upside-down homeowner situation there are additional confusing issues. First, there must be an actual deficiency between the amount owed and the amount the lender receives.  If the lender has no recourse, they’ll generally give you a 1099 from which you may be liable for debt forgiveness tax.  But, if the debt has been forgiven, how can the PMI insurer claim recourse?  Second, since the insurer is communicating with the lender and not you, how can they hold you liable for a claim of which you had no knowledge and no input?  Third, since the only real purpose of the PMI is to insure injury resulting from a default by the borrower, then - unlike the auto accident - it is the default that is being insured, not obtaining the loan and therefore there should not be any recourse right for the insurer.

As of this point is time, we are not aware of any cases in which insurance companies have actually filed lawsuits against borrowers seeking PMI recourse. Such cases may be going on at the local Court level and have not reached the visibility (and legal authority) that only arises from an appeal after a Judgment to a Court of Appeals.  Given that a breach of contract claim such as failing to reimburse an insurer must be brought within a certain period of time after the breach occurs (such as 4 years in California), we may wait a long time before there is any certainty how Courts will treat such claims.  Further, if and when those cases are brought, there may be a great difference in rulings by different courts. It is the appeals process that starts to bring uniformity to decisions.

So the short answer to whether a Mortgage Insurer can get a Deficiency Judgment is “maybe”.  However, as set forth above, if any such suits are brought there many defenses that borrowers can argue to protect themselves. Even more effective may be the reluctance of judges and juries to further punish upside-down borrowers especially when the lenders (that arguably created this problem) get made whole.

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/.  

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/.  

Some lenders, such as Bank of America, have until very recently demanded that recourse language be in every Short Sale consent letter. Few if any lenders have written loans with non-recourse language for many years. During the past month, we know that BofA has dropped the recourse language from short sale consents in at least two short sales we assisted in.  The legal issue is whether the language in a short sale consent can alter the recourse or non-recourse nature of the original loan. We do not believe that it can. 

For example, in California where we practice law, if the loan in question is a purchase-money acquisition loan for a 1-4 unit property in which the borrower lived, that loan is non-recourse as a matter of law. For any lender to try to get around this with a short-sale consent is likely unenforceable. But we cannot know how the courts will ultimately rule on these if the lender subsequently tries to collect the deficiency. In a different situation, if the original loan was recourse, ie: not an acquisition loan, then the lender has a better chance at collecting on a deficiency because they had that right in the original loan. However, if there is only one loan on the home and it is a recourse loan, it is still highly unlikely that a lender would ever realistically pursue a judicial foreclosure in order to get a deficiency judgment. It costs too much and takes too long compared with a Trustee Sale which is relatively quick and cheap but bars them from a deficiency. These are the issues we look for in our consultations and it provieds the basis for the strategies in short sale negotiation.

Obviously, we always recommend seeking to strike recourse language from short sale consents. If the lender refuses, then it is a weighing of the risks vs rewards of signing anyway:

1. The Short Sale is better for the borrower because the credit damage is less and it doesn’t trigger the FHA and FNMA foreclosure blocks on further loans;

2. The Short Sale generally produces a higher price than a foreclosure so it reduces potential debt forgiveness taxes.

3. Even if the borrower signs the consent, it still may be unenforceable since arguably the borrower received no real benefit from the deal;

4. Even if the borrower signs the consent, it still may be unenforceable since arguably the lender has no right to waive taking the security and then suing the borrower.

Points 3 and 4 are the critical issues that the courts will likely deal with in the next 2-3 years if any such lender recovery suits get filed.

So, there is no one right answer to this question. The above examples are based upon California law. The law in other states may lead to different conclusions, especially in states that do not allow for Trustee Sales. Signing may make sense but I would always make sure that the seller/borrower understands the risks and rewards before making any recommendation.

I also appreciate that real estate agents are placed in a difficult conflicted position with shorts sales. If the seller signs the consent, the agent gets paid. If they don’t sign, the agent doesn’t get paid. While of course agents always look out for their client’s best interest and have a fiduciary duty to do so, the risk-reward equation is different for the agent than it is for the seller, especially when there would be no recourse (and no commission paid) if the property were foreclosed because the short sale failed.

So, if you are faced with the situation of deciding whether or not to sign the lender consent agreement in a Short Sale, be sure to get competent legal advice first from a real estate attorney in your state and be sure that they can advice you as well on the impact of debt forgiveness tax even if there is no recourse.

If you have specific questions about your California 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/.

Short Sales offer benefits to all parties:  the upside down seller minimizes their credit damage and can negotiate issues of deficiency liability;  the lender gets money now and reasonably gets more than they would through a foreclosure, the buyer gets a home at current market values, and most importantly, one more property is removed from the market thus moving us closer to a real estate recovery.  The sticking point remains lender unwillingness to give up on recourse against the seller/borrower but that has been changing in recent weeks most notably with Bank of America dropping its insistence on recourse is all short sales.  So, while this will not help owners keep their homes, it does help them and the market get on with life and move to a recovery.

Processing the massive amounts of short sale Hardship applications remains a time-consuming effort for lenders. Help may be on the way through new companies such as Mortgage Resolution Services (MResolution.com) which are developing standardized processing and lender negotiation systems that promise to expedite the approval.  As always, borrowers should get independent advice from a knowledgeable attorney as to what their potential judgment and tax liability is before going into any short-sale or letting their property go in foreclosure.

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/.  

By its nature, a HELOC is a cross between a home loan and a credit card secured by the property. You get the funds up fron to purchase the property like any acquisition home loan. Then, as the HELOC gets paid down, you can draw out money again up to the original amount of the HELOC like you would with a credit card.  On one hand, if it is used to purchase the property, it certainly would appear to have all the characteristics of a purchase money acquisition loan and therefore should be non-recourse. However, since additional credit draws would be in effect new loan amounts not purchase money, these would reasonably be recourse loans.  Lenders would have us believe that this additional loan ability makes the entire HELOC a recourse loan. 

I disagree.

For most home purchasers using two loans, the reason was that the first loan would be 80% and thus mortgage insurance would not be required. The 2nd loan filled in the gap between the 1st loan and the Buyer’s down payment, typically 10-15% of the purchase price.  Since these are both necessary for the Buyer to purchase the home, these are purchase money acquisition debt and would be non-recourse (assuming 1-4 unit, owner-occupied).  For the Buyer, the title of the 2nd loan would not seemingly matter. Whether the lender called it a Home Loan, Home Equity Loan, or Home Equity Line of Credit would not make a difference to a Buyer who needed the loan to purchase the home.

As stated in the 1976 case of Union Bank v Wendland, “The antideficiency statutes indicate a legislative intent to limit strictly the right to recover deficiency judgments….the purpose of that antideficiency statute is to discourage the overvaluing of the security, and the risk of inadequate security because of overvaluation is placed on the purchase money mortgagee.“  Since the lender is placing a value on the property at the time of acquisition and is making a loan secured by the value of the property at that time, the anti-deficiency protection of Sec. 580b should apply to the HELOC just as it would apply to any other acquisition loan. The only difference between the HELOC and any other loan is that the lender allows the borrower to take money back out up to the original secured amount.  And unlike a credit card, the debt is secured. So arguably, even further draws back to the original amount could be non-recourse as well. As the court said in the Union Bank case, “…. the protections of the anti-deficiency statutes can not be avoided because of some clever paper shuffling on the part of the lender. To allow such is a circumvention of the anti-deficiency statutes.”

Can a lender get around this by having a provision in the loan documents stating that the loan will always be recourse?  That is unclear.  Court’s do not excuse a borrower from not reading and understanding their loan documents before they sign.  But, given the very unequal bargaining position of the parties, I expect that the Court’s would lean in favor of application of 580b.  We’ll have to wait and see how these cases turn out, if indeed any such cases are actually filed.

Of course, none of the above is going to stop unethical lenders and collection agencies from threatening and scaring borrowers into paying money on non-recourse debt. 

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.  Need help Coping with an Upside Down Loan? Checkout Steve’s audio-seminar and e-book at: http://www.stevebeede.com/copingwithanupsidedownmortgage/.