BANK OF AMERICA STOPS FORECLOSURES IN ALL 50 STATES!
UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) supports Bank of America’s decision to halt foreclosures across the nation, according to a release. “I thank Bank of America for doing the right thing,” he said in a statement, calling on other lenders to follow the bank’s lead and expand their foreclosure moratoriums.
Bank of America will stop foreclosures in all 50 U.S. states, CNBC and the Wall Street Journal report.
Last week the bank, the country’s biggest by assets, announced it was halting foreclosures in the 23 states where foreclosures are processed in court, saying it needed to review foreclosure documents for potential errors. Now, the bank has extended that moratorium to all 50 states as it has decided to stop sales of foreclosed properties, blocking a major step in the foreclosure process.
The decision comes as a foreclosure crisis threatens the nation’s housing market and larger economy. Reports of foreclosure processors approving documents without properly reviewing them and bank agents changing locks on the doors of houses that aren’t even in foreclosure — while the residents are inside — pile ambiguity and scandal on the foreclosure system. Delays in the process further cripple the weak housing market.
Already, foreclosure ambiguities have begun to stall sales of foreclosed properties. The New York Times describes the case of a woman who was about to move into a house when Fannie Mae declared the property’s foreclosure might not have been valid, and she was told to wait. While owners of foreclosed homes may be glad to see these proceedings halted, buyers of those homes — and the larger housing market — are suffering.
Analyst Christopher Whalen predicts the country has slogged only a quarter of the way through the massive foreclosure process, which he said could incite a crisis that would touch every corner of the U.S. economy.
In the years leading up to the housing crash, investors hungered for risky mortgages that banks would bundle and re-package into securities. This arcane market drove banks to initiate more and riskier mortgages at break-neck speeds. Consultant Janet Tavakoli has said the massive amounts of shoddy paperwork that accompanied this process are now being exposed, wreaking havoc on the banks and on the economy.
Posted by George Beckus Esq
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335
40 STATES TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF MORTGAGE COMPANIES
A coalition of as many as 40 state attorneys general is expected Wednesday to announce an investigation into the mortgage-servicing industry, an effort some of them hope will pressure financial institutions to rewrite large numbers of troubled loans.
The move comes amid recent allegations that mortgage-servicers, which include units of major banks such as Bank of America Corp., submitted fraudulent documents in thousands of foreclosure proceedings nationwide.
The banks say the document problems are technical—largely the result of papers approved by so-called robo-signers with little review—and don’t reflect substantive problems with foreclosures. Still, they have drawn criticism from consumer advocates and state and federal lawmakers.
“I think the mortgage-servicing firms need to understand that they face real exposure now, and they would be well advised to take this very seriously, to clean this up by doing loan workouts to keep people in their homes, which up till now they’ve just paid lip-service to,” said Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray.
Some in Congress have called for a moratorium on all foreclosures until the documentation issue is resolved, though senior Administration officials Monday again declined to endorse that idea. Servicers that have lied to courts by filing incorrect paperwork “need to suffer the consequences for their irresponsible actions,” said Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. But “where we have not found problems with particular servicers…we do have some risk of going too far.”
The attorneys’ general immediate aim is to determine the scale of the document problems and correct them. But several of them have said that the investigation could force the lenders and servicers to agree to mass loan modifications or principal forgiveness schemes. Other possibilities include financial penalties or changes in mortgage servicing practices.
Lenders and servicers have largely resisted reducing principal on mortgages, instead focusing on interest-rate reductions or term extensions. Banks say they are worried about lawsuits from investors, some of whom could lose money in a principal write down.
Former New Jersey attorney general Peter Harvey, now a trial lawyer in New York, said that a settlement with state attorneys general would likely “to give the banks some cover” to make changes that might otherwise result in lawsuits by investors in mortgage-backed securities.
The mortgage servicers had little to say in response to an impending multi-state probe. “We will work with the attorneys general to address the concerns they have expressed,” said Dan Frahm, a spokesman for Bank of America.
“We look forward to cooperating with the attorneys general,” said a spokesman for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which has suspended foreclosure sales and evictions in 23 states in response to questions about it use of robo-signers. A spokesman for Citigroup said the company, has “no reason to believe our employees have not been following” proper procedures in processing foreclosures. A spokeswoman for GMAC Home Mortgage Inc, a unit of Ally Financial, Inc, said it continued to review its loan documents.
The number of servicing companies that will be included in the probe hasn’t been determined.
Iowa attorney general Thomas Miller, who is leading the effort, said his office might take cues from an investigation brought by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley. She successfully pressured Bank of America Corp. in March to reduce mortgage-loan balances by as much as 30% for thousands of borrowers, using the threat of a lawsuit to get a settlement, though documentation problems were not at issue then.
The primary weapon the states could wield would be their respective laws against unfair and deceptive acts and practices, said Prentiss Cox, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota and former Assistant Attorney General in Minnesota.
Those laws are easier to apply, however, when a lender misleads a borrower than in pursuing problems with foreclosures related to documentation, he said. Individual attorneys general could also bring actions under states’ various foreclosure laws.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said she was preparing to introduce legislation meant to tighten foreclosure laws and prevent document errors in the future. She also is pushing federal representatives to resurrect a bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to “cram down,” or cut, a troubled homeowner’s mortgage debt.
“The immediate goal is to stop fraudulent foreclosure and to require that the lenders and servicers are following the law. But that’s the bare minimum. That’s what they have to do to follow the law,” she said.
Nearly a dozen attorneys general nationwide, including Ms. Coakley and Mr. Miller, have called on lenders and servicers to suspend foreclosures until document irregularities are studied and corrected.
Top lawyers from multiple states have gone after mortgage lenders before. In 2008, Bank of America Corp. settled charges brought by 15 attorneys related to accusations of predatory lending in its Countrywide Financial Corp. unit, granting loan modifications worth $8.4 billion to thousands of homeowners.
Mr. Cordray, of Ohio, last week became the first attorney general to sue a mortgage servicer, when he filed suit against GMAC Mortgage LLC. The suit also named as a defendant GMAC employee Jeffrey Stephan, an alleged “robo-signer,” who said that he signed off on thousands of court documents related to foreclosures without reading them first.
GMAC announced that it was suspending foreclosures in the 23 U.S. states where judges are required to sign off on them after news of Mr. Stephan’s activities surfaced. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s Chase Home Mortgage unit suspended judicial foreclosures soon after, and Bank of America followed suit. On Friday, Bank of America widened its foreclosure freeze to all 50 states.
Some attorney generals would like to look beyond the narrow issues raised by the robo-signing. The issue “I’m most engaged in right now is the big servicers who are initiating foreclosures while the borrower is in the modification process,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard
Posted By George Beckus Esq
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335
BOOTED FROM A LOAN MOD. PROGRAM FOR PAYING MTG TOO EARLY!
After losing one of her part-time jobs in the fall, Indiana law student Melissa Stuart applied for a mortgage modification in hopes of reducing her monthly payment. Her servicer, GMAC, deemed her eligible and put her in a trial modification under the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program. She said her monthly payment shrank to $874 from $1,108 — a huge relief.
“I would have had to live off my credit card,” said Stuart, 28. “Two-hundred bucks doesn’t sound like a lot but I had a premium increase on my health insurance… I went from $180 to $219.”
To keep people in their homes, HAMP gives servicers cash incentives to modify mortgage terms. Borrowers who meet eligibility requirements are put in trial modifications that typically last three months (Stuart’s was for four), and if they make their payments the modification is supposed to become permanent. But GMAC called Stuart with bad news in February.
“I assumed I would be getting a call or some kind of notice of my permanent modification — but it was GMAC collections. ‘You owe us $4,000. When can you pay?’ I explained to them I was in the Making Home Affordable Program. They said, ‘No, you were kicked out of that program in January.’”
A couple weeks later, Stuart received notice that if she didn’t pay outstanding charges and fees within 30 days, the foreclosure process would begin.
“I had a panic attack for like 30 minutes,” she said. “I pride myself on being really responsible… I was hyperventilating and just, ‘Oh shit, what am I going to do? Now it’s getting serious. This is beyond my control.’”
Servicers participating in HAMP are allowed to move forward with the foreclosure process (but not to foreclose) while a borrower is in a trial modification, a cause of much confusion to homeowners. Under HAMP, servicers generally report homeowners in trial mods as delinquent for credit-reporting purposes.
“There are confused borrowers all over the country,” said Julia Gordon, senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending. “On the one hand they think they’re in the middle of getting a HAMP mod, and then they get this notice… Basically you get these legalese things saying, ‘We’re setting up foreclosure.’”
“It really demonstrates that the servicing industry really needs serious regulation,” said Gordon.
Stuart had extra cause for concern because she’d been told that she had been kicked out of HAMP. That seems to have happened because she set her automatic payments too early — instead of on the first day of the month, Stuart set her bank account to make the payment automatically on the 25th of the previous month. She was concerned that GMAC wouldn’t accept the money on Jan. 1, New Year’s Day.
It was intuitive to Stuart, but GMAC, apparently, didn’t appreciate the early payment. Stuart said that whenever she called GMAC for an explanation, she was told that payments had to be made on the first of the month, no sooner.
In addition to calling GMAC, Stuart said she reached out to one of her senators, to the special investigator for the TARP bailout program and to Fannie Mae. Everyone replied to say something along the lines of they were “looking into the matter.”
Finally, on Wednesday, Stuart received word from GMAC that she would be given a permanent modification after all. Never mind about that foreclosure.
In a statement to HuffPost, GMAC said it has modified its servicing practices to avoid the type of problem that Stuart had: “GMAC updated the trial agreement to reflect that trial payments must be paid on the due date or within five days thereafter. This revised language is included in all trial agreements offered by GMAC as of December 16, 2009.”
Also, GMAC said it has “implemented technology in January 2010 to identify HAMP-eligible accounts subject to these certain investor guidelines. The enhancements better ensure that any trial payment made early will not be applied before the specified due date.”
“GMAC is committed to preserving homeownership wherever possible, and we believe that we have reached an agreeable solution for Ms. Stuart.”
Stuart is glad GMAC said she could have a permanent modification, but she’s waiting to see the paperwork. She heard about the decision in a voicemail from a GMAC executive, which she shared with HuffPost:
“I had gotten a request through our corporate communications office to take a look at your file,” said the executive. “We have been able to get approval to go ahead and use the trial modification you have already completed as your evidence to commit to repayment of the mortgage. We are going to move this loan now into the permanent modification phase.”
“I’m no different from one of a million different homeowners,” said Stuart. “It’s very frustrating when you have to go to these lengths just to get something resolved.”
Florida Supreme Court Changes Rules on Banks
If you have been reading this blog regularly, or if you have just skimmed the articles, you probably have heard that the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) has a task force that was working hard last year at trying to come up with ideas to break the log jam of foreclosure cases strangling Florida’s courts. Along with recommending mediation in all new foreclosure filings (a recommendation adopted by the FSC in December of 2009) one of the proposals was for a change to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the FSC approved forms published for use in accordance with the rules. These proposed amendments were fast-trascked by the Supremes in order to have them implemented as soon as possible.
On February 11, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court issued its written opinion adopting the proposed rule changes in their final forms. The most significant change was an addition to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b), which added language that all new foreclosure complaints filed in the state had to be verified, which means that they must be attested to by the Plaintiff, asserting that all the information in it is true and correct, under penalty of perjury. In its opinion, the Justices explained that this was being done to encourage the banks to ensure that they had all the proper documentation proving their claims to be able to foreclose on the subject property BEFORE commencing a suit. The Justices also noted that foreclosure complaints frequently contain contradictory statements where in one count, the bank claims to own the note and mortgage, and in the next count, they are asking the court to reconstruct a lost note and/or mortgage!
The significance of this requirement should not be understated. The FSC is threatening banks with perjury charges if they continue to bring their frequently incorrect and fraudulent cases before Florida courts, and at the same time, sending those courts a signal through this rule change to deal harshly with Plaintiffs that are clearly abusing the judicial system. This should start getting interesting soon…
Other changes were less dramatic, but potentially just as important for homeowners. One change homeowners in foreclosure definitely need to be aware of, is the change to form 1.996(b), Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale. The previously approved forms did not require very much in the way of grounds for requesting the cancellation, which the Justices felt may allow for cancellation of sales without valid grounds. The new forms will require more information.
Lastly, a modification of the form filed by process servers when they are unable to personally serve an individual were modified to require more information from the process server. Since many foreclosure actions are done through a process called “service by publication” the FSC felt homeowners and their attorneys should have more information available to them to determine whether the attempts at service were sufficient.
The full text of the opinion (Docket number SC09-1460) with the actual changes adopted, can be viewed at:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/opinions.shtml
OHIO MAN BULLDOZES HOME TO AVOID FORECLOSURE
An Ohio man says he bulldozed his $350,000 home to keep a bank from foreclosing on it.
Terry Hoskins says he has struggled with the RiverHills Bank over his home in Moscow for years and had problems with the Internal Revenue Service. He says the IRS placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property and the bank claimed his house as collateral.
Hoskins says he owes $160,000 on the house. He says he spent a lot of money on attorneys and finally had enough. About two weeks ago he bulldozed the home 25 miles southeast of Cincinnati.
Messages were left for the bank and its attorney.
IRS spokeswoman Jodie Reynolds said individual taxpayer information is private and federal law prevents her from commenting.”
Local TV station WLWT has an interesting video report about Hoskins’s plight here. Hoskins told WLWT: “When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn’t going to stand for that, so I took it down.”
POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335
EVEN THE STARS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FORECLOSURE
Brian Austin Green is more than $70,000 behind on mortgage payments for his home in the Hollywood Hills — but according to his rep, it’s all part of a calculated real estate
SunTrust Mortgage, INC has filed legal papers in Los Angeles which show Green owes $71,251.42 as of January 26, 2010. The docs show Green took out a $2,000,000 mortgage with the company in 2006.
According to the docs, SunTrust has begun the foreclosure process and has the right to put the house up for auction if Brian doesn’t fork over the green.
But Green’s rep says Brian has worked out a deal to get rid of the house in a “short sale” — which means SunTrust will allow Green to try and sell the house for less than he owes in order to recover as much money as it can … subject to the bank’s approval.
It’s unclear if the mortgage company imposed a deadline on the sale.
Posted by George Beckus Esq
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335
GIVE UP THE DEED TO YOUR HOUSE FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS, NO THANKS!
WASHINGTON – Citigroup Inc. plans to let homeowners on the verge of foreclosure stay in their homes for six months — if they turn over the deed to their property.
Citi said Thursday it is launching the pilot program, dubbed “Foreclosure Alternatives,” this week in Texas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and Ohio. Initially, about 1,000 homeowners are expected to participate. Citi may expand the program nationwide.
In a normal foreclosure, a lender assumes legal control of the property and evicts the homeowner. But Citi’s program, like other “deed in lieu of foreclosure” efforts, allows the homeowner to avoid a completed foreclosure. While the owner must still leave the home after six months, the program results in a less severe hit to the borrower’s credit score.
The policy is an attempt to deal with what lenders see as a growing phenomenon: borrowers who choose to default on their mortgages. Close to one in every three U.S. homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.
Many housing analysts say these borrowers — particularly those who owe at least 20 percent more than their home’s current value — are choosing to walk away because they see little chance that home prices will come back.
Also, many states have lengthened the time it takes to complete a foreclosure, making the process more time-consuming and expensive for the lending industry.
“Why should we all go through the foreclosure process and evict people?” said Sanjiv Das, Citi’s top mortgage executive. Avoiding foreclosure, Das said, is “less painful for our borrowers as well as for us.”
Borrowers in Citi’s program will still need to pay their utility bills. But Citi will pay at least $1,000 in relocation costs and will consider helping out with other expenses. Citi also plans to provide relocation counseling.
The program is intended to help borrowers who don’t qualify for a mortgage modification or a short sale — one in which the lender agrees to sell a home for less than the total mortgage amount.
Citi’s policy is similar to one announced in November by Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage finance company. Fannie is allowing homeowners to hand back the deed to their properties, then rent them back at market rates.
This is just another example of how the big banks who received a tax-payer bailout are not doing anything to deal with the foreclosure crisis.
What everyone needs to know is that with valid defenses most homeowners can stay in the home mortgage free for a year or two!
If a distressed homeowner choses to accept Citi’s offer then you also must insist that they sign a waiver of deficiency. You see after you walk away from your home and give up any and all defenses you may have to the foreclosure, the bank can still come after you for what you owe on your mortgage. That’s right, you just saved the bank the time, money and effort of foreclosing on your property, only to be sued for a deficiency judgment!
Once again if you want to give up your property and not fight the foreclosure that is your right, but if you do then insist on a signed waiver of deficiency. If Citi refuses to do this then drag out this process as long as you can, while living rent-mortgage free. They may also tell you that they never sign a waiver of deficiency but it is also not in their practice to go after defiency judgments. Don’t believe them. If they don’t sign, you don’t leave! Always seek the counsel of an experienced foreclosure defense attorney.
Posted By George Beckus Esq.
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335
SLASH PRINCIPAL INSTEAD OF INTEREST RATES
Even as the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure-prevention program has foundered, Treasury Department officials have known that a key driver in keeping people in their homes in the long run is reducing mortgage principal, senior Treasury advisor Seth Wheeler told the Huffington Post. Wheeler is one of the architects of the administration’s housing plan.
But rather than pressure the mortgage companies to start reducing the amount mortgage-holders owe, the administration simply sat back and hoped servicers would do it on their own.
“When the administration came into office last year, from the get-go, it has certainly been aware of the link between negative equity and challenges in housing,” said Wheeler. “As the administration initially designed the modification program last year, it was aware of negative equity, was aware that some servicers were doing principal reductions.”
But the administration “specifically had designed the program to allow principal reductions without taking a position of where principal reductions would be most advantageous,” he said.
So for the past year, the administration had a policy of “rather than us endorsing a uniform approach to principal reductions, let’s give flexibility to servicers and hope that they do it on their own in the right circumstances,” Wheeler said.
Now that the program has been universally panned, the administration is working on ways to be more assertive on that point, he said.
In the meantime, mortgage delinquency rates and foreclosures have continued to rise. The number of homeowners “underwater” — those owing more on their mortgage than the home is worth — now stands at roughly 11 million, about a quarter of all mortgage holders, according to real estate research firm First American CoreLogic. It’s expected to increase.
“Negative equity is the single most important driver of defaults,” Laurie S. Goodman, senior managing director at Amherst Securities and a top mortgage bond analyst, said Tuesday during a panel discussion at the American Securitization Forum’s annual conference.
Wheeler, who was on the panel, listened for an hour as mortgage experts lambasted the administration’s foreclosure-prevention efforts, saying it’s been inadequate; will ultimately be ineffective in its current form; and doesn’t address the underlying causes driving foreclosures. In short, as it’s currently constructed, it’s destined to fail.
“Clearly negative equity creates — especially for borrowers that have a financial hardship and have a high LTV [loan-to-value ratio], a very high LTV — a complicating factor, and it certainly makes it more challenging to make a modification work for borrowers,” Wheeler told HuffPost.
In an interview, Wheeler said the administration is trying “to understand how to encourage more principal reductions.”
Less than 10 percent of permanent modifications under the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program have involved principle reductions.
“I won’t take a position on whether there’s been too much or too little, but we are studying if it is being used as effectively as it should be,” Wheeler said. “There could be better outcomes.” Referencing those mortgages that have been sliced and diced and sold to investors, Wheeler said the administration “is encouraging more principal reductions in instances where we find that it would maximize recovery to investors.”
Simply reducing interest rates for five years, which the Obama administration’s program does for homeowners who transition out of three-month trial periods, is “a purely temporary modification [that] ultimately doesn’t solve the problem,” said Micah Green, a partner at Patton Boggs LLP, a Washington law firm that represents a mortgage-investor group of asset managers who hold more than $100 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities.
Without principal reductions, “there is a growing realization within the administration and on Capitol Hill that it’s very difficult to bottom out the housing market,” Green said.
“The interests of investors are totally aligned with those of homeowners,” he added. “Investors are willing to put money on the table and frankly take their losses, which they already have.”
Wheeler acknowledged that, from an economic perspective, principal cuts are the way to go.
“Certainly on both second [lien mortgages] and first [lien mortgages], principal reductions can actually reduce total losses from an economic perspective [and] from a finance perspective,” he said.
The administration is also under pressure because losses on AAA-rated subprime mortgage-backed securities are growing.
These securities were designed so that different classes of investors got different rates of return depending on the risk they were willing to take. Those who agreed to take on the first losses, for example, got higher rates of return.
But increasingly over the past few months, the amount owed to investors has begun to eclipse the value of the mortgage principal in the securities, said Alan M. White, a professor at Valparaiso University School of Law and an expert on mortgage-backed securities and housing issues. Those at the bottom rung — the ones who agreed to take first losses — had already taken their lumps as homeowners fell behind on payments or defaulted. Now it’s investors at the top of the food chain who are recording losses.
White said that is creating a growing sense of urgency among investors to do something now to keep homeowners in their homes so they can keep making their monthly payments, which go to investors.
Despite the fact that many experts — including some in the administration — agree that principal cuts are the best way to resolve the foreclosure crisis, there are impediments.
Wheeler said issues of fairness are complicating efforts. So is moral hazard, a theory that posits that when people enjoy the fruits of their actions without having to suffer any of the consequences they do it more. It’s something Treasury officials have repeated on conference calls with reporters when discussing the administration’s foreclosure-prevention efforts.
“Not just in a general sense,” Wheeler said. Specifically, he pointed out, “there are many analysts on Wall Street who say do not reduce principal because anything you do to encourage borrowers to behave differently, so as to obtain a certain outcome, that could actually encourage more delinquencies.”
But that’s not the real problem, said one mortgage expert. It’s politics.
“They’ve been preoccupied with this whole moral hazard idea. The administration has been obsessed with it,” White said. “It’s more of a political hazard issue.”
White argues that the administration is scared of the political fallout if some homeowners are seen as being bailed out by the government while their neighbors struggle. After hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were used to bail out banks and the financial system — a tab that could reach into the trillions — moral hazard should no longer be a concern, White says.
Asked if the housing situation has deteriorated to a point where moral hazard should no longer be an issue, Goodman of Amherst Securities said: “I think so.”
White points out there are ways to ensure only the most deserving homeowners catch a break. On that point, Wheeler agreed.
As White put it: “They’re going to lose the ability to be in denial very soon.”
POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335
LENDERS WILL SEEK DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS AFTER FORECLOSURE
As terrible as it is to lose your house to foreclosure, at least it’s a relief to put your biggest financial headache behind you, right?
Wrong.
Former homeowners may still be on the hook if there’s a difference between what they owed on their mortgage and what the bank could sell it for at auction. And these “deficiency judgments” are ticking time bombs that can explode years after borrowers lose their homes.
It can even happen to people who got their bank to approve them selling their home for less than it is worth.
Vanessa Corey, for example, short sold her Fredericksburg, Va., home in April 2008. She and her husband built the house in 2004, but setbacks, both personal (divorce) and professional (housing bust), made it impossible for the real estate agent to keep her home. So she negotiated the short sale and thought that was the end of it.
“My understanding was that the deficiency was negotiated away,” she said. “Then, last November, I got a letter from a lawyer telling me I owed my lender $65,000. I had to declare bankruptcy. There was no way I could pay it.”
Many homeowners are now in the same boat. And not just those who took out bigger loans than they could afford or who did so called “liar loans” where they didn’t have to verify their income.
Because of falling home prices, borrowers who always paid their mortgage but who have run into unforeseen circumstances — like unemployment or a job transfer — can no longer sell their homes for what they owe. As a result, they are being forced to short sell or foreclose and are getting caught up in deficiency judgments.
“After the banks foreclose, it’s very common now to have large deficiencies with houses not worth the balances owed,” said Don Lampe, a North Carolina real estate attorney.
Lenders mostly declined comment. Although Corey’s lender, BB&T did indicate it was pursuing more deficiency judgments.
“They follow the rise and fall of foreclosures,” said the spokeswoman, who would not discuss Corey’s account.
Can they come after you?
Whether banks can and will pursue deficiency judgments depends on many factors, including what state the borrower lives in and whether there’s a second mortgage or other liens. But if borrowers ignore the possibility of deficiencies, it could haunt them.
“Once they have a judgment, they can pursue you anywhere,” said Richard Zaretsky, a board-certified real estate attorney in West Palm Beach, Fla. “They can ask for financial records, have your wages garnished and, if you fail to respond, a judge can put you in jail.”
In the case of foreclosure, lenders can pursue deficiencies in more than 30 states, including Florida, New York and Texas, according to the U.S. Foreclosure Network, an organization of mortgage law firms.
Some states, such as California, are “non-recourse” and don’t allow deficiency judgments. But, even there, if the if the original loan was refinanced, some or all of it may be subject to claims.
Deficiency judgments on short sales and deeds-in-lieu can happen in many more places. In these cases, extinguishing the debt is often a matter of negotiating with the bank.
But even when lenders are willing, many borrowers may not be aware that they have to ask for release. So, if you are pursuing a short sale, be sure your attorney asks the bank to release you from any further obligation.
“People shouldn’t have a false sense of security that a deficiency judgment may not be later sought,” Zaretsky said.
He expects many will be filed over the next few years, based on the fact that banks have sold many of these accounts to collection agencies and other third parties, at discount.
“The parties who bought those notes wouldn’t have paid money for them unless they had the intention of acting,” Zaretsky said.
Ticking time bomb
What can be scary is that the judgments don’t have to be obtained immediately. Lenders or collection agencies may wait until debtors have recovered financially before they swoop in. In Florida, the bank can wait up to five years to file. Once the court grants a judgment, the lender has 20 years there to collect, with interest.
It doesn’t have to be a large amount of debt for a lender or collection agency to come after borrowers. Richard Varno and his wife short sold their Nashville home back in 2004 after he lost his job.
It wasn’t until 2008, when the second lien holder asked him for $25,000, that he realized he still was liable.
“I told them, ‘Hey, you guys released the title,’” he said. “As far as I know, I’m off the hook.”
He wasn’t. Releasing title does not necessarily end the debt. It’s complicated because of variations in state law, but, generally, a mortgage has two parts: a pledge of collateral, represented by the home, and a promise to pay off the loan.
Lenders may release property liens in order to facilitate short sales without releasing borrowers from their obligations to pay under the promissory notes. The secured debt can convert to an unsecured one after the sale.
Zaretsky had one client who was so relieved to have arranged a short sale that he signed every paper his real estate agent shoved at him, even a confession that clearly stated he still owed the debt.
“He had no idea what he was doing,” said Zaretsky. “All the lender had to do was go to court to convert the confession into a deficiency judgment.”
Lenders are also very inconsistent. One of Zaretsky’s short-sale clients was ready, willing and able to pay, but the bank did not even ask; another lender always reserves the right to pursue the deficiency.
Strategic defaults
Sometimes lenders go after borrowers walking away from their homes if they have other assets, according to Florida real estate attorney Larry Tolchinsky.
“Banks are pulling credit reports to see if it’s a strategic default,” he said. “If you’re behind on all your other payments, you’re okay. But if you’re not, they’ll come after you.”
If borrowers have any doubts about their risks, they should seek legal advice. Or, at least, call non-profit organizations such as NeighborWorks for advice. According to Doug Robinson, a NeighborWorks spokesman, its counselors always try to negotiate away deficiencies when they facilitate short sales or deeds-in-lieu.
“We don’t favor any short-sale contracts that leave any deficiency that can be pursued,” he said.
Robinson himself knows what can happen. He paid off a deficiency after his own New Jersey house went through foreclosure 11 years ago.
POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335
FORECLOSURES TO COME
The share of borrowers who are falling seriously behind on loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration jumped by more than a third in the past year, foreshadowing a crush of foreclosures that could further buffet an agency vital to the housing market’s recovery.
About 9.1 percent of FHA borrowers had missed at least three payments as of December, up from 6.5 percent a year ago, the agency’s figures show.
Although the FHA’s default rate has been climbing for months and eating into the agency’s cash, the latest figures show that the FHA’s woes are getting worse even as the housing market shows signs of improvement. The problems are rooted in FHA mortgages made in 2007 and 2008. Those loans are now maturing into their worst years because failures most often occur two to three years after a mortgage is made.
If the trend continues and the FHA’s cash reserves are exhausted, the federal government would automatically use taxpayer money to cover the losses — a first for the agency, which has always used the fees it charges borrowers to pay for its losses.
As these loans from 2007 and 2008 go bad and clear off of the FHA’s books, agency officials said, losses are expected to taper off, aided by the housing market’s anticipated recovery and an influx of more creditworthy borrowers, who have flocked to the FHA’s home-buying program in the past year.
Agency officials said they have cracked down on poorly performing lenders and announced higher qualifying fees for borrowers. On Monday, the agency projected that the fees should generate $5.8 billion in fiscal 2011, up from $2 billion this year. That would fatten the FHA’s cash cushion, used to cover unexpected losses.
Beleaguered books
For now, just about every major measure of the agency’s financial health is worsening.
The FHA does not make loans but insures lenders against losses. And claims have already spiked. The agency had to pay out on 47 percent more loans in October and November than in the corresponding period a year earlier, according to an FHA report.
The number of loans in foreclosure, including those that have not yet been billed to the agency, has also increased. They were up 26 percent in the last quarter from a year earlier.
FHA Commissioner David H. Stevens, who joined the agency in July, flagged his agency’s troubles with the 2007 and 2008 loans in October, when he told a House panel that “rogue players on the margin” immediately migrated to the world of FHA lending after the subprime mortgage market collapsed.
Their aggressive lending tactics attracted borrowers with unusually poor credit profiles to the FHA. “That clearly impacted the books of business in 2007 and 2008, and that performance data is showing up very clearly in today’s balance sheet,” Stevens said at the time.
Plunging home prices have exacerbated matters by leaving some FHA borrowers unable to sell or refinance their homes because they owe more than their homes are worth. Yet with unemployment running high, many borrowers can’t afford to keep up their payments.
Adding to the trouble was a now-defunct FHA program that enabled sellers to cover the down payments of buyers. This meant many borrowers had no skin in the game and were more likely to walk away at early signs of trouble. The program resulted in excessive defaults before it was ended in late 2008, and it is projected to cost FHA an additional $10.5 billion in losses, Stevens said.
For all these reasons, the FHA projects that it will pay out claims to lenders on one out of every four loans made in 2007 — the worst rate in at least three decades. The claim rate should be nearly the same on the vastly larger volume of loans made in 2008.
Better borrowers
But agency officials said they have reasons to be optimistic.
The FHA-backed loans made in 2009 tended to go to borrowers with higher credit scores than in previous years. These borrowers turned to the FHA when the mortgage market collapsed and other lending sources dried up. By then, reputable lenders doing business with the agency were already imposing tougher restrictions on FHA borrowers, further boosting the credit profile of those loans. The average credit score of an FHA borrower is now 690, up from 630 only two years ago, agency officials said.
These higher-quality loans are expected to result in lower losses, so the agency should make money on loans issued this year and over the next few years, according to an independent audit designed to gauge the agency’s health.
The audit, released in November, found that the cash the FHA set aside to pay for unexpected losses had dipped to historic lows, well below the level required by law. As of Sept. 30, those reserves were estimated at $3.6 billion, down from nearly $13 billion a year earlier. The most recent figure represents 0.53 percent of the value of all FHA single-family-home loans — far lower than the 2 percent required by Congress.
But Ann Schnare, a former Freddie Mac official, said the situation could be even worse. She said the audit underestimates future losses because it does not take into account all loans that are now overdue, only those that the FHA has paid claims on.
Stevens said his agency has pored over its data to analyze risk and is taking steps to shore up its financial health. “You have a limited set of options under these circumstances: Raise fees [for borrowers] or make policy changes,” Stevens said in an interview. “We’ve done both.”
The agency banned 268 lenders from making FHA loans last year, more than double the total terminated in the previous eight years. The FHA suspended six other firms. Among them were some of the largest FHA lenders — Taylor, Bean & Whitaker and Lend America, both of which shut their doors soon thereafter.
The agency also proposed a rule that would require banks to hold up to $2.5 million in capital that they can use to repay the agency for losses if they were involved in fraud. Banks are now required to hold only $250,000.
Borrowers are also facing tougher scrutiny from the agency. People taking out FHA loans will have to pay higher upfront fees, perhaps as early as this spring. Those with especially weak credit scores will also have to put down at least 10 percent instead of the usual 3.5 percent down payment. The amount of money sellers can kick in toward closing costs and other fees will also be limited.
POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335