On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of Thrift Supervision announced enforcement actions against 14 large residential mortgage servicers and two third-party vendors for unsafe and unsound practices related to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing.  As part of those consent orders, federal regulators required servicers to engage independent firms to conduct a multi-faceted review of foreclosure actions in process in 2009 and 2010. Under the orders, independent consultants are charged with evaluating whether borrowers suffered financial injury through errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure practices and determining appropriate remediation for those customers. Where a borrower suffered financial injury as a result of such practices, the agencies’ orders require financial remediation to be provided.

To be eligible, the mortgage must have been active in the foreclosure process between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, the property securing the loan must have been the primary residence, and the mortgage must have been serviced by one of the following mortgage servicers:

To be eligible, the mortgage must have been active in the foreclosure process between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, the property securing the loan must have been the primary residence, and the mortgage must have been serviced by one of the following mortgage servicers:

• America’s Servicing Co.
• Aurora Loan Services
• BAC Home Loans Servicing
• Bank of America
• Beneficial
• Chase
• Citibank
• CitiFinancial
• CitiMortgage
• Countrywide
• EMC
• EverBank/EverHome Mortgage Company
• GMAC Mortgage
• HFC
• HSBC
• IndyMac Mortgage Services
• MetLife Bank
• National City Mortgage
• PNC Mortgage
• Sovereign Bank
• SunTrust Mortgage
• U.S. Bank
• Wachovia Mortgage
• Washington Mutual (WaMu)
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
• Wilshire Credit Corporation

As part of that program, the 14 mortgage servicers covered by the enforcement actions will begin mailings November 1, 2011 that will continue through the end of the year. The mailings are intended to provide information to potentially eligible borrowers on how to request a review of their case if they believe they suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure proceedings related to their primary residence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The mailings will include a request for review form. Requests for review must be received by April 30, 2012.

The third-party consultant will assess whether any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies resulted in financial injury to borrowers. Where a borrower suffered financial injury as a result of such practices, the consent orders require remediation to be provided.  During the review, customers may be contacted by mortgage servicers for additional information at the direction of the independent consultant.

Borrowers may also visit www.IndependentForeclosureReview.com for more information about the review and claim process. Assistance with the form and answers to questions about the process are available at 1-888-952-9105, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (ET) and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (ET).

If you believe that you are eligible for the Review Program or need assistance with the process or determining your rights, we at BPE Law are here to help you with both the application and review process as well as any related proces such as making a Qualified Written Request for your loan information. You can reach us by e-mail at sjbeede@bpelaw.com or by phone 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 you’re facing a lender lawsuit, get competent legal advice in your State immediately so that you can determine your best options.

For many months, we’ve been hearing of Courts throwing out lender lawsuits for judicial foreclosure based upon falsified declarations.  Now many States are jumping in and suspending certain foreclosures.  Here’s the background in what is going on and what to expect in the future.

Each State has its own laws for handling defaulted home loans. For example, California allows both Judicial foreclosures (lawsuit in the courts) and non-judicial foreclosures (non-court Trustee Sale).  Each method has its pros and cons for lenders, but because of the speed and lower cost of Trustee Sales, that is generally used for home foreclosures. However, in California if a lender does do a Trustee Sale, they give up any right to recover a deficiency judgment on the unpaid balance.  It’s different in other States.  23 States only allow Judicial Foreclosure so their foreclosures are always Court supervised. The remaining States allow a choice of either method but only a few bar deficiency judgments after Trustee Sale.  So there are two issues arising in a foreclosure: 1) loss of home; and 2) deficiency judgment risk.

The problem for lenders first arose in the judicial foreclosure States.  As part of their legal filing, the lenders were required to provide a sworn statement as to the truth of the facts claimed in their lawsuit such as that they owned the loan and that the procedures for foreclosure were properly followed.  However, it was discovered that attorneys for the lenders were falsifying the sworn statements and in many cases simply having someone sign the form without any actual knowledge of the facts, so called “robo-signers”.  Presumably the lenders and their attorneys filing thousands of such lawsuits believed that no one would pick up on this and they hoped they could get quick results. They were wrong.  Attorneys for some defendants challenged the lawsuits and the false statements and the Courts have responded by throwing out the lawsuits.

While lawsuits get challenged all the time and typically are corrected, the extent of these falsified Complaints indicated a systemic policy of lenders committing this fraud.  Faced with potentially damning publicity and possible legal sanctions, lenders stated damage control. Last month, GMAC admitted that their employees had falsified foreclosure documents.  Recently, Chase and BofA admitted the same.  Each has stated that they are suspending foreclosures until the problem is fixed. Meanwhile, the States have started to act. on Friday, Connecticut suspended all foreclosures for 60 days.  California’s attorney general has ordered Chase to stop foreclosures or prove the validity of its process.  More are expected to follow as further evidence comes out showing the corruption in the foreclosure process.  However, other lenders such as Wells Fargo have not made any suspension and have recently indicated its intent to increase the pace of foeclosures. This is surprising given indications that Wells Fargo has also filed lawsuits against borrowers without legal merit.

These foreclosure suspensions will give affected upside-down owners some more time but they will not result in loan foregiveness.  The lenders will fix the problem and defaulted loans will eventually be foreclosed unless an alternate resolution is reached.  This means that impacted lenders will likely be much more receptive to a loan modification or short sale without deficiency recourse.  The one step that we do not expect to see is Congress or State legislatures coming to the rescue of homeowners.  They have shown no willingness to date to do anything other than bailout lenders without recourse for the terrible lending practices that drove us into this Recession.

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 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.

This economic recession has brought little hope for homeowners. Despite numerous government sponsored programs such as HAMP and HAFA, very few borrowers get loan modifications and thus upside-down owners are left facing either short-sale or foreclosure.  But there may be a more effective approach… fighting back.

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.

Everyday we’re meeting with property owners who can’t get a loan modification and are deciding whether to attempt a short sale or just let the property go to foreclosure.  For more than 90%, a short sale is the best solution because it causes less credit damage, provides negotiation of recourse liability (especially important with multiple lenders), and avoids the potential future career damage of having a “foreclosure” on your record. Indeed, having at least attempted a short sale demonstrates a cooperation that may speed up the willingness of future creditors to provide a new loan.  But short sale is not always for everyone.

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.

The rights and responsibilities of lenders in dealing with upside-down loans are governed by State as well as Federal law.  In all cases, lenders must act “in good faith and with fair dealing” and comply with the law. However, in at least two recent actions in California, Wells Fargo appears to indicate that they consider themselves above the law and can do whatever they choose:

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.

As many already know, the California legislature passed SB 401 on April 9th. While Gov. Schwarzenegger originally said he would not sign the Bill due to tax riders, but he signed the Bill yesterday  and it is now law.  California law will now be aligned with the Federal Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Relief Act and will give CA owner-occupant property owners debt forgiveness tax protection through 2012 and retroactively running from 2009 (2007-2008 already protected). To learn more, read today’s article by Jim Wasserman in the Sacramento Bee: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/13/2674065/california-wont-tax-forgiven-home.html.

There is some confusion in the Blogging world concerning debt forgiveness relief.  Some believe that the forgiveness automatically exists if the loan or loans were acquisition loans (1 to 4 unit, owner-occupied). This would be correct if the owner never refinanced and stayed owner occupant throughout. But it would not be correct if the owner later moves and rents the propertyout.  If you are in this situation, be sure to check with your accountant to determine how this will apply yo your situation.

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

As readers of my Blog know, there has been very, very little help provided by any government programs that theoretically are to help troubled homeowners keep their homes.  Even less help has been provided by the lenders.  The original Hope For Homeowners program failed to get lender cooperation. This was followed last year with the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (”HAMP”) which also has failed to deliver any substantial help to upside down borrowers.  And now, effective April 5th, the government will open their newest program, the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (”HAFA”).  Significantly, this Program is being introduced as a part of the HAMP program but it has nothing to do with helping people keep their homes. Rather, it is designed to assist lenders in getting the existing owners out through a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure. 

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 sjbeede@bpelaw.com or contact my office at 916 966-2260 for a confidential appointment by phone or in person.

As borrowers continue to grapple with upside-down loans and short sales and foreclosures continue to climb, the risk of debt forgiveness tax becomes more important, especially for investors who do not have the personal residence exclusion from Federal taxes on forgiven debt.  “Debt Forgiveness” occurs when the lender doesn’t get paid all that they are owed and they are not going to pursue you for any unpaid balance.  Although the risk of a judgment on the unpaid balance goes away, you can be taxed on the amount of forgiven debt as if it were income you had earned,. This is often called “Phantom Income” because you never really saw it but you are still affected by it.  As I discussed in prior Blogs, the Federal government has relief from this tax on personal residences through 2012. California has no relief.  Luckily, both have an “insolvency Exclusion” that may apply and which can enable a debtor to otherwise avoid being driven into Bankruptcy. Since Bankruptcy has far greater potential negative consequences than a short sale or even a foreclosure, the possibility of avoiding these taxes without filing Bankruptcy is important. Here’s how the Insolvency exclusion works.

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/.

Many people are confused as to what happens if the property in which they live has been foreclosed. Most fear that a Sheriff will come knocking on the door to suddenly kick them out. In California (an likely most other states) that cannot legally occur.  A foreclosure simply creates a change in the ownership of the property. The rights of the occupants in the property are determined by what their status was before the foreclosure and now, Federal and California has made these rights even clearer.  This creates more protection for tenants and a possible trap for unaware foreclosure buyers.

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.