2011

2011 Massachusetts Real Estate Law Year In Review

by Rich Vetstein on December 30, 2011

in Foreclosure, Homestead, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Real Estate Litigation, Title Defects, Trespass

It’s time again for our annual review of highlights in Massachusetts Real Estate Law for the past year. It’s been a very busy year. From the foreclosure fallout, to Occupy Boston, to the new homestead law, there’s been lots to report on. We’ll start in order of importance this year.

SJC Decides Controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Case

2011 started off with a bang with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the widely publicized foreclosure case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. Our coverage of the case can be read here and here. The Court’s ruling was rather elementary: you need to own the mortgage before you can foreclose. But it’s become much more complicated with the proliferation of securitized mortgages bought and sold numerous times on Wall Street. The Court held that the common industry practice of assigning a mortgage “in blank” — meaning without specifying to whom the mortgage would be assigned until after the fact — does not constitute a proper assignment, at least in Massachusetts. The ruling left many innocent homeowners and title insurance companies scrambling to deal with titles rendered defective due to the ruling. The fallout continues to this day with no resolution by lawmakers.

AG Coakley Sues Major Banks For Foreclosure Fraud

2011 was certainly the Year of Foreclosure Fallout. Earlier in December, Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” The case remains pending.

Massachusetts Real Estate Attorneys Win Legal Victory Ensuring Their Place At Closing Table

In the closely watched case of Real Estate Bar Association (REBA) v. National Estate Information Services (NREIS), Massachusetts real estate attorneys won a huge legal victory reaffirming their long-standing role to oversee the closing process and conduct closings in Massachusetts. The case pitted Mass. attorneys vs. out of state notary companies who were trying to conduct notary real estate closings without trained attorneys. Siding with the consumer, the court required “not only the presence but the substantive participation of an attorney on behalf of the mortgage lender.”

New Homestead Law

This year saw the passing of the long-awaited comprehensive revision to our outdated Homestead Act. Here is a summary:

  • All Massachusetts homeowners receive an automatic homestead exemption of $125,000 for protection against certain creditor claims on their principal residence without having to do anything.
  • All Mass. residents are eligible for a $500,000 “declared homestead exemption” by filing a declaration of homestead at the registry of deeds. For married couples, both spouses will now have to sign the form–which is a change from prior practice.
  • Homesteads are now available on 2-4 family homes, and for homes in trust.
  • The existing “elderly and disabled” homestead will remain available at $500,000.
  • If you have a homestead as a single person, and get married, the homestead automatically protects your new spouse. Homesteads now pass on to the surviving spouse and children who live in the home.
  • You do not have to re-file a homestead after a refinance.

More Foreclosure Fallout With Bevilacqua and Eaton Cases

The U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case was the start, but certainly not the ending of the foreclosure fallout. The case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez considered property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures. The ruling with a mix of good and bad news. The bad news was that victims of defective foreclosure titles could not seek redress through the Land Court “quiet title” procedure. The good news was that the court left open whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together (like Humpty-Dumpty) and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles.

Eaton v. Fannie Mae is the next foreclosure case awaiting final decision. As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the very important question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Using the “produce the note” defense which has been gaining steam across across the country, the borrower, Ms. Eaton, was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting her eviction by a foreclosing lender. The SJC heard arguments in the fall and is expected to issue a final ruling early in 2012. A ruling against lenders would be as big, or even bigger, than the Ibanez case.

Lastly, another case to watch for in 2012 is HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt which will decide whether a lender holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process. The case is should be ready for oral argument in late winter, early spring 2012.

Judge Evicts Occupy Boston Protesters

What would 2011 be without a homage to the Occupy Movement! Citing property and trespass law from centuries ago, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Frances A. McIntyre issuing a ruling clearing the way for the eviction of the Occupy Boston protest which has taken over Dewey Square in downtown Boston. Our coverage of the ruling is here.

Well, that’s it for a very busy year 2011 in Massachusetts real estate law! The year 2012 is expected to be just as busy, and of course, we’ll be on top of all the breaking news here on the Blog.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

{ 0 comments }

Maximizing Massachusetts Short Sale Success: From Hardship Letter To Closing

by Rich Vetstein on December 25, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Short Sales

Tireless Determination The Key To Massachusetts Short Sale Success

What Is A Short Sale?

A short sale is special type of real estate transaction between a homeowner, his mortgage holder(s), and a third party buyer where the property owner’s mortgage balance exceeds the market value of the property — known as being “under water.” In a short sale, the homeowner’s mortgage lender agrees to accept less than what is owed on the outstanding mortgage, thereby being left “short.” Ideally, the lender will agree to release out the entire debt including any deficiency between the sales price and mortgage balance. This is called a deficiency waiver and most skilled short sale negotiators will insist on this.

The entire process can be extremely time consuming and typically requires a lengthy negotiation with the lender by a skilled Massachusetts short sale attorney or lawyer. Banks and loan servicers now realize that short sales are a preferred method to dispose of distressed properties as they are far less expensive than foreclosure. Short sales are generally reserved for homeowners who do not qualify for a loan modification.

Do I Qualify For A Short Sale?

Homeowners can qualify for short sale approval by proving a recognized involuntary financial hardship. An involuntary financial hardship is some event, beyond the homeowner’s control, that caused the mortgage payments to become unaffordable, even if only temporarily. Acceptable hardships typically include:

  • Loss of a employment
  • Curtailment of income
  • Increased mortgage payment or liabilities
  • Loss of tenant(s)
  • Divorce or Separation
  • Catastrophic medical event
  • Job relocation
  • Military service; or
  • Death in the family

Most lenders distinguish between someone who lost their job and someone who voluntarily quit their job. Thus, unless you are able to prove that you were forced to leave your job, or asked by your employer to take a significant pay cut, a change of employment status may not automatically qualify you for a short sale. Furthermore, many homeowners have suffered multiple hardships, and it can be difficult deciding which hardship you should present to your lender when requesting a short sale. 

The Hardship Letter

As a part of the short sale application process, a skilled Massachusetts short sale lawyer will draft a hardship letter detailing why you are no longer able to make mortgage payments on your home and why you qualify for a short sale. The hardship letter can be one of the most important aspects of the short sale process and should be as detailed as possible, telling a compelling story about the applicant’s individual circumstances.

As part of the short sale hardship package, the short sale applicant will also submit the following:

  • Third party authorization (allowing your lawyer and/or realtor to communicate with your lender)
  • Financial worksheet (breakdown of monthly expenses and income)
  • Hardship letter (why you could pay your mortgage before and why you cannot now)
  • Recent pay-stubs
  • Recent Bank statements
  • Offer to Purchase
  • MLS listing showing the market history of your property
  • Last 2 Years Federal Tax Returns

How Long Does Short Sale Approval Take?

Depending on who your lender is and how many loans you have, short sale approve can take on average between 60 – 120 days, depending on the particular lender and complexity of the case. If the lender makes a counter offer on the purchase price or if there are multiple mortgages and liens against the property, the process will take longer. One of the keys is to submit requested documentation as fast as possible, and to stay on the lender, with frequent requests for status updates. That’s what separates a skilled short sale attorney from the run-of-the-mill negotiators who’ll let your file languish.

Credit and Legal Ramifications

A short sale is far less damaging to your credit and ability to secure a mortgage down the road than a foreclosure or bankruptcy, although it does have some impact.

Foreclosure Short Sale
Credit Score Same impact as a bankruptcy, 200 – 300 negative points on a credit score.  Score affected minimum of 3 years and will report for 7 – 10 years. Any late/missed mortgage payments will show on credit score. Once the short sale is completed, it will be reported as settled for less than full amount due (or similar verbiage).  Impact can be as little as 50 points, lasting apprx. 12 to 18 months.
Credit History On credit history for 7 to 10 years. Only the late payments will be reported on your credit. The short sale will appear the same as a charge off on a credit card and will be reported as settled for less than full amount due (or similar verbiage).
Future Home Purchase (Primary Residence) Ineligible for Fannie Mae backed mortgage for 5 years. Ineligible for Fannie Mae mortgage for 2 years. (Can use local bank or private lender).
New Mortgage
 Must disclose foreclosure on 1003 loan application which may affect future rates after the 5-7 waiting period. There currently are not any questions related to a short sale on the loan application.
Deficiency Rights In Mass., lender retains right to collect any deficiency judgment after foreclosure. It is rare however. We are typically successful in negotiating full and complete deficiency waiver in a short sale approval.

 

Do I Need A Short Sale Attorney?

Only if you want to maximize your chances of getting short sale approved, obtain approval in the fastest manner possible, and protect your legal rights and future credit history at the same time! There are real estate agents and short sale firms advertising themselves as short sale negotiators — and some are really good — however, they are not licensed to provide legal or tax advice, and you must seek that advice elsewhere at additional cost. With an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney, the applicant can “kill two birds with one stone,” by having the attorney take over the entire short sale approval process. While negotiating with your lender, the short sale attorney can simultaneously perform all necessary short sale legal work, including reviewing and drafting the offer to purchase, short sale approval letter and purchase and sale agreement with short sale addendum/riders. The cost is relatively the same across the board, and some of the fees may be paid by the lender, depending on who it is.

We highly recommend Andrew Coppo at Greater Boston Short Sales LLC, an experienced and successful short sale negotiator. Andrew writes all about Massachusetts short sales on his fantastic blog, The Closing Table.

______________________________________________________________

Richard Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney. For more information, please contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup or 508-620-5352.

{ 5 comments }

Inertia Is Not An Option: Superior Court Rules BofA Can’t Drag Heels On HAMP Loan Modification

by Rich Vetstein on December 24, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Real Estate Litigation

First Reported Mass. Ruling On Home Affordable Modification Program Liability

The fallout from the sub-prime and mortgage crisis continues in Massachusetts courts, and some judges are reacting in favor of sympathetic borrowers. In Parker v. Bank of America, Massachusetts Superior Court (Dec. 15, 2011), Judge Thomas Billings considered what is unfortunately now a very common fact pattern in borrowers’ quest to have their lenders approve loan modifications, or loan mods. The ruling is embedded below.

A Common Story of Lost Paperwork and Ineptitude

In 2007, Valerie Parker granted first and second mortgages on her home in Lowell to Bank of America. She paid the loans on time for the first 24 months. As the economy worsened, however, she anticipated difficulty in making payments, and so she called BofA for advice. The bank told her that because the loan was not in default they could not help her, and that she would have to cease payments if she wanted their assistance. (Is this not one of the most ridiculous, yet common, responses lenders give to troubled borrowers?)

After a lengthy period of lost and repeatedly re-submitted paperwork, BofA informed Parker she qualified for HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) relief, underwent a lengthy financial audit over the telephone, and was promised followup documentation and a halt to further collection and foreclosure efforts. BofA repeatedly lost her paperwork; she had to submit and re-submit documents; and she spent hours at a time on hold, waiting to speak with a human being. She did, however, receive the bank’s verbal assurance that she was “pre-qualified” for the HAMP program and that confirmatory paperwork would be forthcoming. BofA never sent the promised documentation, however, and refused to approve a loan modification. Lengthy and repeated telephone calls produced no documents, no approval, and no progress. Finally, BofA told Parker there was no record of her having qualified for the program. She requested and was given the opportunity to reapply, but the documentation still never came. All while, the collection calls continued and the late fees kept mounting, and the loan was at some point placed in foreclosure.

“Inertia Is Not An Option”

Parker asserted a number of different claims against BofA, but the two which stuck, according to the judge, were her claims for fraud and breach of contract. The judge went through a lengthy history of the recent sub-prime crisis, the TARP bailout plan, and the HAMP program, concluding that BofA’s actions against Parker were unfair under these consumer protection programs.

In a great line, the judge said that “inertia is not an option” when a lender considers a borrower’s legitimate request for a HAMP loan modification. Under HAMP, there are strict deadlines by which lenders must respond to a borrower’s application, and foreclosure activity must stop during the consideration period. The judge lamented that federal regulators had failed to pass enforcement mechanisms to protect borrowers from lenders dragging their heels on loan modifications. Noting that borrowers have no other forum in which their claims may be heard and adjudicated other than the courts, Judge Billings held that Parker could claim “third party beneficiary” status of BofA’s participation in the TARP/HAMP program–diverging from several colleagues opinions to the contrary.

Lastly, in a boon for borrowers, the court left open whether lenders could face Chapter 93A liability — with its triple damages and attorneys’ fees — for similar conduct. While Parker’s counsel dropped the ball by not sending BofA a required demand letter prior to filing suit, this option may be open for other borrowers.

Impact of Ruling

This is one of the first court rulings siding with a borrower on a lender’s liability for dropping the HAMP ball. Clearly, this particular judge is well-educated on what’s been going on with the mortgage crisis and was likely fed up with lenders’ shoddy treatment of some borrowers. But is his legal reasoning correct? The judge can certainly be accused of legislating from the bench here, as the vast majority of other court rulings have rejected his reasoning. (At least 6 opinions by my count, mostly from federal court).

But his reasoning does have some intrinsic appeal inasmuch as HAMP is clearly a consumer driven program and the judge is basically saying that lenders must treat HAMP applicants fairly in accordance with the program rules. If what Ms. Parker says is true, there is a minimum level of fairness that she did not receive. But the problem is what if she simply doesn’t qualify for a loan modification? And every lender who entertains a modification request can be subject to civil liability for rejecting an applicant? Would that chill HAMP modifications even more? Rest assured, we will see more cases like Parker reaching the Superior Court and the Massachusetts appellate courts in the near future.

________________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

Parker v. Bank of America (BofA)

{ 0 comments }

Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation: What You Can Expect Going To Trial, Part 2

by Rich Vetstein on December 20, 2011

in Adverse Possession, Condominium Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Real Estate Litigation

Part 2 of a two part series. For part 1 on filing the Complaint, Venue and Discovery click here.

Expert Testimony

We left off in our last post at the discovery state of litigation. We covered fact discovery of witnesses, but we didn’t address an important component of most real estate litigation cases: experts.

Expert testimony is required when you need to explain to a judge or jury a technical area of the case which is outside the general knowledge of a “regular” person. Experts in a Massachusetts real estate lawsuit can range from appraisers, construction experts, land surveyors, title attorneys, land use planners, civil and wetlands engineers, traffic planners, and handwriting experts. Needless to say, experts are expensive, charging several hundred dollars per hour on an engagement. But they are vitally important. In Massachusetts state court litigation, parties must disclose before trial an expert’s qualifications and a general summary of what the expert will testify to at trial, including his methodology. For litigators like myself, preparing and cross-examining experts is often quite an intellectual challenge and one of the “fun” parts of a trial.

Dispositive Motions

Often in real estate litigation, the case can be decided by way of a “dispositive motion” by the judge prior to trial. In this procedure, called a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, the important facts of the case are undisputed, and the judge can decide the case based on the law. The lawyers will prepare detailed motions, affidavits, and legal briefs, and there will usually be a lengthy hearing before the judge. This procedure will also avoid the need for a trial, saving litigants a much expense. Judges, however, can take a long time deciding a dispositive motion. Months to even a full year is not unheard of.

Pretrial Conference

If the facts of the case are hotly disputed, the case will be set down for a trial date at the pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference, the attorneys meet with the judge to discuss readiness for trial, witness lists, expert testimony, unusual legal or evidentiary issues, and the status of settlement talks, if any.

Obtaining a firm trial day these days is pretty much a moving target. It really depends on the county. Middlesex Superior is pretty good at giving firm trial dates, while Norfolk County is not, in my experience.  The Land Court gives out firm trial dates, but has no juries. Prepare to wait several months after the pre-trial conference to get a trial date, which will probably be rescheduled at least once. Massachusetts courts have been beset with budget cuts which has negatively impacted the speed of the courts’ docket. Justice moves slowly in the Commonwealth.

Settlement/Mediation

Given the huge costs and delays of litigation, this is a good place to talk about settlement and mediation. I always explore settlement possibilities of a case early on. If a case can be settled early, both litigants can avoid significant legal expenses and can usually craft a better resolution than a judge or jury can. But clients often come to me very upset and emotional about the situation, so talking settlement may be perceived as “caving in” to the other side. It is not, and clients usually see the light once they get a bill or two from my office.

Mediation is a non-binding settlement process where a neutral mediator (usually a retired judge or experienced attorney) will mediate the dispute between the parties in a structured manner. Both sides get to tell their sides of the story, then the mediator will usually separate the parties into different rooms, shuttling back and forth attempting to broker the peace. There is a cathartic and healing process that often occurs during mediation where parties have a chance to express their anger, resentment, and feelings which can greatly assist the settlement process. Also, the settlement itself often can be much more flexible and creative than what a judge or jury can render after a trial. If mediation does not work out, the case goes back on the trial list. There is no obligation to settle.

Trial

Less than 1% of all civil cases in Massachusetts get to the end of a trial. If your case is in this 1%, prepare yourself for an experience. Jury trials are not for the faint of heart. They are incredibly labor intensive, with the attorneys spending hours upon hours preparing for trial, and burning the midnight oil during the trial itself. The more lawyer time required, the higher the legal bill.

If you are selecting a Massachusetts litigation or trial attorney, ask him or her how many civil jury trials they have done. I’m not talking about former district attorneys who have done a bunch of criminal trials. Complex, civil trials are a totally different animal and call for a lawyer who has done a significant amount of civil trial work. Be wary of any lawyer who claims to have won every trial he has done. There is a saying that a trial lawyer who has never lost a case hasn’t tried many in the first place. Don’t be afraid of small law firm attorneys. In my experience, they are much better trying cases than big firm lawyers who spent the greater part of their careers doing document review and depositions.

Appeals

In the American judicial system, litigants can pretty much appeal anything with impunity. Filing an appeal will usually stop a final judgment from issuing, but in some cases the winning party can ask the losing party to post a bond.

Appeals requires a special skill set, great research, and writing by an experienced Massachusetts appellate attorney. The appeals process can take at least a year or even more to complete. The trial record must be assembled by the trial court. If there was a trial, transcripts need to be ordered from the court reporters or digital tapes and then transcribed. This can take quite a bit of time. Then, the attorneys file lengthy appellate briefs, after which the case is scheduled for oral argument before a panel of appellate justices. After oral argument is held, the court will issue its written opinion, which will either uphold the lower court’s decision, reverse it, or remand it back for a new trial or other action. Appellate opinions are released to the general public and become what is known as the common law of Massachusetts, to be cited as precedent in other cases.

Well, that’s it for now. Remember, litigation should be a last resort, once all attempts at an amicable, reasonable resolution fail.

____________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 2 comments }

Massachusetts Weekly Mortgage Rate Report (Dec. 20, 2011)

by Rich Vetstein on December 20, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages

A Guest Post by Brian Cavanaugh of SmarterBorrowing.com.

Inquire within for current Mortgage Rates or Guidelines   [email protected]  617.771.5021

Overall, I am expecting to see some movement in the markets and mortgage rates, especially if we get some surprising results from the week’s data or news about Europe’s financial crisis. Despite the holiday season, we need to keep a cautious approach toward rates because we are likely to see very thin trading (light volume) as a result of many traders keeping short hours or home for the holiday altogether. This means that firms that trade bonds will likely be keeping only a skeleton staff the latter part of the week and raises the possibility of a stronger reaction to surprises in the economic data than we normally would see.

The least important day for mortgage rates will likely be tomorrow unless something drastic happens overnight. We will probably see the most movement in rates Friday, but Thursday’s economic data can also move mortgage pricing noticeably. With the Christmas holiday next weekend, it is being observed next Monday. The bond market will close early this Friday afternoon ahead of the holiday and will reopen next Tuesday morning. Accordingly, proceed cautiously this week if still floating an interest rate and closing by the end of the year.  proceed cautiously this week if still floating an interest rate and closing by the end of the year.

If I were considering financing/refinancing a home, I would….

LOCK if my closing was taking place within 7 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 8 and 20 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 21 and 60 days…

FLOAT if my closing was taking place over 60 days from now…

This is only my opinion of what I would do if I were financing a home. It is only an opinion and cannot be guaranteed.

{ 0 comments }

Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation: What You Can Expect Going To Court, Part 1

by Rich Vetstein on December 17, 2011

in Condominium Law, Liens, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Real Estate Litigation, Trespass, Zoning

sjc-300x134.jpg

For most folks, litigation and courtrooms are as foreign as Belgium. When a new clients comes to me with a potential litigation matter, I spend most of our first consultation discussing the process of litigation and how it works. Then inevitably we have to talk about the cost and expense, which for most lawsuits is a lot more than people expect. In this post, I wanted to provide you with a summary of what happens when you decide to file a Massachusetts real estate litigation and lawsuit, or if you have to defend yourself against one.

First Steps: Filing Or Answering The Complaint & Selecting A Venue

The first step in every Massachusetts lawsuit is the filing of the Complaint, along with a filing fee ($285 in Superior Court). The Complaint sets forth the factual allegations of the lawsuit, along with the formal legal claims such as breach of contract, zoning appeal, adverse possession or fraud.

Most real estate litigation cases where the damages exceed $25,000 are filed in either the Superior Court or the Land Court. (For smaller matters under $25,000 you can file in the local District Court; small claims cases are for $7,500 or less).

The Land Court is a specialized court with expertise in real estate disputes. I’ve written about the Land Court here. The Superior Court is the “jack of all trades” trial court, and hears just about every type of civil and criminal dispute at the trial level. Depending on the facts of the case, there are strategic advantages to filing in either Superior or Land Court.

After the complaint is filed, a Summons is issued which must be formally served by constable or sheriff on the “defendants” in the case. The attorney will arrange for service of the summons and complaint to be made and a sheriff will show up at the defendant’s home or business with the legal papers. Defendants have 20 days to “answer” the complaint. The Answer is a formal response to the Complaint, and the defendants can also assert any “counterclaims” he or she may have against the plaintiff.

Pre-Judgment Remedies

Many real estate litigation cases involve asking the court for some type of relief or action during the initial stages of the lawsuit. This is called “pre-judgment relief.” In many real estate cases, a litigant will ask the court for a lis pendens on property, which is a formal notice of the claim recorded on title. In other cases, a litigant will ask for an injunction or restraining order stopping a landowner from building or taking other adverse action which would injure their property.

Asking a court for such pre-judgment relief requires filing motion papers, legal memoranda and often multiple court hearings where the lawyers will argue the issues before the judge. This will add another level of expense on the case, often quite a bit. I usually give clients a ballpark figure of $5,000 for taking a case through the pre-judgment relief stage–could be less, could be more, depending on the response from the other side.

Often cases can be won or lost at these early stages as a lis pendens can stifle a potential sale or an injunction can shut down a construction site, thereby forcing a favorable settlement. Thus, it is very important to have an experienced and savvy Massachusetts real estate litigation attorney work up the case properly and argue the case forcefully during a pre-judgment remedy proceeding. There are certain ways to increase your chances of success at this stage and even obtain relief without the other side even knowing you are going to court, called ex parte relief, if the situation warrants. (Ex parte in Latin means “from (by or for) one party.”)

Phase 2: Discovery

For cases on the normal track, once the answer is filed and all factual allegations and legal claims are raised in the case, it moves to the next stage: discovery. Discovery is the process where each side shares information about the case with each other. Litigation is not supposed to be a cat-and-mouse-hide-the-ball game.

This is a good time to discuss how long it takes to get to a trial in a Massachusetts lawsuit. With huge budget cuts in the courts, it is taking up to 2+ years for most civil cases to reach trial. Yes, you read that correctly. It can take even more time in some cases. I’ve had a case in Norfolk County (Dedham) ready for trial 3 different times, only to get bumped at the last minute, each time costing the client thousands of dollars in legal fees and months of delay. There is really nothing a litigant can do about these delays (save for settling the case out of court).

The discovery stage is the most labor intensive and expensive part of the case, with lawyers taking depositions of witnesses and filing and answering formal written questions, called interrogatories, and responding to requests for document production. There are often disputes and motions which have to be resolved in this stage. Depositions can easily cost $1,000 each, and discovery in a fairly involved case can run easily up to $10,000 + in legal fees.

For the next post, we will discuss Phase 3: Summary Judgment/Pre-Trial, Going To Trial, and Appeals (click here). Stay tuned!

________________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

 

{ 4 comments }

Weekly Massachusetts Mortgage Rate Lock Report (Dec. 12, 2011)

by Rich Vetstein on December 12, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Mortgages

Brian Cavanaugh of SmarterBorrowing.com is back with his Massachusetts Weekly Mortgage Rate Update. Scroll to the bottom for Brian’s valuable Massachusetts Mortgage Rate Lock Advice!

Inquire within for current Mortgage Rates or Guidelines   [email protected]  617.771.5021

Overall, I am expecting to see a much more active week in the financial markets and mortgage pricing than last week. The most important day of the week is either Tuesday or Friday due to the reports being posted those days and the FOMC meeting scheduled. Please maintain contact with your mortgage professional if you have not locked an interest rate yet because we may see sizable changes to mortgage pricing more than one day this week.

If I were considering financing/refinancing a home, I would….

LOCK if my closing was taking place within 7 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 8 and 20 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 21 and 60 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place over 60 days from now…

Busy Week Ahead

This week is fairly busy in terms of the number of economic releases and other events scheduled that may influence mortgage rates. There are only four pieces of economic data for us to watch, but three of them are highly important to the markets. In addition to the economic reports, we also have the last FOMC meeting of the year and two important Treasury auctions that are likely to impact bond trading and mortgage pricing. Those events, coupled with the likelihood of further overseas developments from Europe and possibly others, make it highly likely that we will see plenty of movement in the markets and mortgage rates this week.

There is nothing of relevance scheduled for tomorrow. This means we can expect the stock markets to drive bond trading and mortgage rates again. If the major stock indexes open the week with gains tomorrow morning, bonds may move lower, pushing mortgage rates higher. But a weak open in stocks could lead to slightly lower mortgage rates tomorrow. We could also see traders position themselves ahead of the week’s agenda, so even though there is nothing concerning on the calendar, we could see mortgage rates change.

Consumer Price Index Out

The week’s most important economic data comes Friday morning when November’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) is posted. It is similar to Thursday’s Producer Price Index, except it tracks inflationary pressures at the more important consumer level of the economy. Current forecasts call for an increase of 0.1% in the overall index and a 0.1% rise in the core data reading. The core data is watched more closely because it excludes more volatile food and energy prices, giving a more stable reading for analysts to consider. This data is one of the most watched inflation indexes, which is extremely important to long-term securities such as mortgage related bonds. Rising inflation erodes the value of a bond’s future fixed interest payments, making them less appealing to investors. That translates into falling bond prices and rising mortgage rates.

Retail Sales Report

Tuesday has two important events, starting with November’s Retail Sales report. This 8:30 AM ET release will give us a key measurement of consumer spending by tracking sales at retail level establishments. This data is highly important to the markets because consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the U.S. economy. Rapidly rising consumer spending raises the possibility of seeing solid economic growth. Since long-term securities such as mortgage bonds are usually more appealing to investors during weaker economic conditions, a large increase in retail sales will likely drive bond prices lower and mortgage rates higher Tuesday. Current forecasts are calling for an increase of 0.6% in November’s sales.

Last Fed Meeting

The last FOMC meeting of the year will also be held Tuesday, adjourning at 2:15 PM ET. There is not much debate about what the Fed will do at this meeting with no chance of them raising key short-term interest rates. Therefore, the post meeting statement will likely be the sole source of a market reaction. This statement has the potential to have a significant influence on the markets and mortgage rates as investors look for any indication of what and when the Fed may do next. One potential move would be more debt purchases by the Fed. An announcement of another round of quantitative easing (QE3) could help boost bond prices and improve mortgage rates Tuesday afternoon. Besides that, it is believed that there isn’t much more the Fed can do to help boost economic activity.

Treasury Auctions

There are Treasury auctions scheduled for several days this week, but the two important ones are the 10-year Note sale Tuesday and the 30-year Bond sale Wednesday. Tuesday’s auction is the more important of the two and will likely influence mortgage rates more. Results of each sale will be posted at 1:00 PM ET. If they were met with a strong demand from investors, particularly international buyers, we should see afternoon strength in bonds and improvements to mortgage pricing those days. On the other hand, a weak interest in the auctions could lead to upward revisions to mortgage rates during afternoon hours.

Wednesday has little to be concerned with, except for the 30-year Bond auction. November’s Producer Price Index (PPI) will be posted early Thursday morning. It measures inflationary pressures at the producer level of the economy. There are two portions of the index that are used- the overall reading and the core data reading. The core data is the more important of the two because it excludes more volatile food and energy prices. If Thursday’s release reveals stronger than expected readings, indicating that inflationary pressures are rising, the bond market will probably react negatively and drive mortgage rates higher. If we see in-line or weaker than expected numbers, the bond market should respond well and mortgage rates should fall. Current forecasts are showing a 0.2% increase in the overall index and a 0.1% rise in the core data.

Nov. Industrial Production Report

November’s Industrial Production data is also scheduled to be posted Thursday morning, but a little later than the PPI. This report gives us a measurement of manufacturing sector strength by tracking output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities. Analysts are expecting it to show a 0.2% increase in output, indicating modest manufacturing growth. A smaller than expected rise would be good news for bonds, while a stronger reading may result in slightly higher mortgage pricing. However, the PPI release is more important to the markets than this data is.

  • Are you a possible Massachusetts First Time Homebuyer?
  • Do you have a Real Estate client inquiring about current Mortgage Rates?
  • Do you have any Refinancing questions?
  • Should you be thinking about Refinancing out of your ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage)?
  • Have your Real Estate clients been Pre Approved?

[email protected]  617.771.5021

This is only my opinion of what I would do if I were financing a home. It is only an opinion and cannot be guaranteed to be in the best interest of all/any other borrowers.

{ 0 comments }

No Trespassing! Judge Evicts Occupy Boston Protesters From Taking Over Dewey Square

by Rich Vetstein on December 7, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety, Trespass

Judge Rules That Occupy Movement Protesters Are Common Trespassers

Today, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Frances A. McIntyre issued a ruling clearing the way for the eviction of the Occupy Boston protest which has taken over Dewey Square in downtown Boston. Judge McIntyre had originally granted the protesters a temporary restraining order sustaining the protests, but after reviewing evidence and hearing legal argument, she has changed her mind.

For interest to our real estate readers, the Judge balanced the City’s property rights vs. the protesters First Amendment speech rights. The judge ultimately concluded that the “occupation” as practiced by the Occupy Boston protesters — physically taking over the public park from the City and to the exclusion of others — was a classic trespass and not a First Amendment right.

“To the extent that the act of occupation, as defined, communicates, it speaks of boldness, outrage, and a willingness to take personal risk. But the plaintiffs’ occupation of Dewey Square to the effective exclusion of others is the very antithesis of their message that a more just and egalitarian society is possible. It does not send the message the plaintiffs profess to intend.” — Judge Francis McIntyre

Analysis: Sound Decision But Quite Expansive

This is a solid, well-reasoned judicial opinion that may be difficult to overcome on appeal. However, the judge’s reasoning on “occupation” is new and perhaps ground-breaking, so it could be susceptible to a different opinion on appeal. This case will surely make its way up to the Supreme Judicial Court, and we’ll blog about it here of course.

As the judge found, the First Amendment is not absolute. Yes, the protesters have a right to assembly, but that right must be peaceful and not permanent as to constitute a seizure of public land or present a grave public safety risk. The First Amendment, by its own language, protects speech, not physical occupation of public land. That’s called eminent domain.

Furthermore, the possibility of real public safety tragedy is virtually guaranteed at some point the longer this encampment is allowed to fester with its flammable tarps, fire sources, auto batteries, extension cords and no sanitary facilities on site. Most of the protesters were not born for the terrible Cocoanut Grove Fire in 1942. A fire would quickly swallow up the tent camp and kill dozens. Health, sanitary and fire codes were not intended to abridge the protester’s speech rights.

The judge went much further than she had to though, and this is where her reasoning could be challenged on appeal:

 “Little in the way of expression is outlawed under the United States Constitution, but an act which incites a lawful forceful response is unlikely to pass as expressive speech.”

One need only turn to the Civil Rights Marches in Alabama in 1963 to see the flaw with this argument. The protesters in Alabama, simply by marching, incited a forceful response by the Alabama police and their water guns. Using Judge McIntyre’s reasoning, therefore, the Civil Rights Marches are not protected by the First Amendment simply because they elicited a police response. This is illogical as many expressive marches in turbulent times have resulted in police reaction. It doesn’t make the marches or speech any less entitled to constitutional protection.

I’ve posted the ruling below. What are your thoughts on the legal issues?

Occupy Boston Decision

{ 1 comment }

SJC Agrees To Hear Crucial Foreclosure Standing Case In HSBC Bank v. Matt

by Rich Vetstein on December 2, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Updated (1/14/13): SJC Rules Against Lender, Holds That Ownership of Mortgage Must Be Established

Court May Decide Lenders’ Standing In All Foreclosure Cases Involving Securitized Mortgages

With all the hoopla yesterday surrounding Attorney General Martha Coakley’s monumental lawsuit against the big banks over foreclosure practices, the Supreme Judicial Court on November 29, 2011 quietly agreed to hear an appeal over whether a lender holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process.

The case is HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt. The docket can be downloaded here.

The SJC will ostensibly decide whether lenders holding mortgages held in a securitized pool, with questions whether they in fact were validly assigned those mortgages, can start foreclosures in Massachusetts.

First Steps: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is one of the first steps in the foreclosure process. Lenders must file a complaint in the Land Court under the Act to ensure the borrower is not in active military service. Once the Land Court determines the borrower’s status in the military, then the lender can proceed to advertise and hold a public foreclosure auction. Historically, the Servicemembers action was rather perfunctory, but today borrowers have begun to challenge lenders’ right to start foreclosures in these initial Land Court proceedings.

Lower Court Opinion

In the lower court, Land Court Judge Keith Long (the judge in both the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and Bevilacqua cases), ruled that HSBC Bank had standing to start the foreclosure process under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, despite serious questions as to whether HSBC validly held the mortgage. The original mortgage was held by New Century, which was in bankruptcy when it purported to assign the mortgage to HSBC. There was no evidence the assignment was authorized by the bankruptcy trustee and whether the signatory had any office or authority to transfer New Century’s bankrupt assets to other parties. Despite these questions, Judge Long ruled that HSBC, through a securitized pooling and servicing agreement, had the contractual right to become the holder of the mortgage, thereby conferring enough standing to start the foreclosure process.

SJC Takes Appeal Sua Sponte

The SJC, in a rare move, took the appeal on its own initiative (sua sponte in legalese) from the Appeals Court. It has not yet released an argument schedule. We’ll be following the case here, so stay tuned.

Notably, foreclosure defense attorney Glenn Russell, Esq., the attorney who prevailed before the SJC in the Ibanez case, is representing the home owner in this case.

The Land Court’s ruling is embedded below.

HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt

{ 3 comments }

A Tale Of Two Opinions: Mass. AG Sues Major Banks and MERS Over Foreclosure Mess While Federal Judge Upholds MERS System

by Rich Vetstein on December 1, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Title Defects

Mass. AG Martha Coakley Credit: Reuters

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

AG Martha Coakley Files Major Civil Action Against Big Banks

First, the big news. Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” Specifically, Coakley blames the banks for not complying with the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision in foreclosing mortgages without evidence of legal ownership of the underlying debt, improper statutory foreclosure notices and illegal “robo-signing.”

I’m sure Coakley will be able to extract a sizable settlement from the banks, but the question remains, what about the foreclosure mess and toxic titles left in its wake? I hope Coakley seriously considers setting up a toxic title monetary fund to assist homeowners who lack title insurance with clearing their titles due to bungled foreclosures in their chain of title.

Here is a link to the AG’s Complaint.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicers: Federal Judge William Young Grapples With Legality Of MERS System

While AG Coakley was putting the finishing touches on her lawsuit, across the way at the Moakley Courthouse at Fan Pier, U.S. District Judge William G. Young and his cadre of law clerks were attempting to work their way through the legal maze which is the MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) system. The case is Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska. We’ve written about MERS quite a bit here on the blog.

I can say with confidence that Judge Young is one of the smartest jurists on the federal bench and in the Commonwealth. I know this first-hand because I clerked for him in law school.

It took him 59 pages to sort though the myriad of legal issues implicated by the complex MERS system, and he had some very choice (and funny) remarks about the system:

“MERS is the Wikipedia of Land Registration Systems.” . . . “A MERS certifying officer is more akin to an Admiral in the Georgia navy or a Kentucky Colonel with benefits than he is to any genuine financial officer.”

Judge William G. Young

But ultimately, Judge Young concluded that MERS did not run afoul of Massachusetts law, by the “thinnest of venires.” So there you have it. MERS is kosher in Massachusetts, at least according to Judge Young.

However, Judge Young’s ruling came with some important caveats. First, he held that MERS does not have the power to foreclose in its own name. This is no longer an issue as MERS new policy is not to foreclosure in its name. But what about prior foreclosures in MERS’ name? Are those still considered valid?

Second, in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, sec. 54B, he ruled that assignments from MERS’ vice presidents to loan servicers or holders are valid despite the signer’s lack of personal knowledge or proof of actual authority. This is a direct contradiction with AG Coakley’s claim that the MERS assignments are invalid.

Lastly, the most important aspect of Judge Young’s ruling was his agreement that foreclosing lenders must hold both the loan (promissory note) and the mortgage together in unity, to foreclose, following the controversial Superior Court opinion in Eaton v. FNMA which is now on appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court. However, Judge Young added an important distinction to this rule, saying that that loan servicers could foreclose in their names where the loan is held in a pooled securitized trust, provided they otherwise comply with Massachusetts foreclosure law. This is a very important distinction as a fair amount of foreclosures are brought in the name of the loan servicer. I’m not so sure Judge Young got this one right as a loan servicer rarely if ever holds the note as assignee, as Professor Adam Levitin notes, but the ruling certainly assists the industry.

So all eyes are back on the SJC awaiting its ruling in the Eaton case which could have even far more impact than the Ibanez decision. Of course, these two events underscore that foreclosures are still a mess crying out for legislative help (which hasn’t come at all), and the crucial importance of title insurance, which all buyers should elect at their closings.

I’ve done a quick video analysis and embedded Judge Young’s opinion below.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services

{ 7 comments }

Local Field Of Dreams Strikes Out In Appeals Court

by Rich Vetstein on November 23, 2011

in Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Real Estate Litigation, Zoning

Worcester Businessman Built Regulation Sized Baseball Field In His Backyard

Harking back to the old days when sandlot ballfields were packed with neighborhood kids, David Massad II, a Worcester car dealer, didn’t plow over a cornfield in Iowa to build a baseball field in his yard; he just leveled the trees behind his 7,382-square-foot home in Shrewsbury to build a regulation sized baseball field for his kids and friends to play on. This being Massachusetts, his neighbors cried foul. The case was just decided by the Appeals Court which, not surprisingly, ruled in favor of the neighbors, holding that the homeowner’s association rules and regulations prohibits the use.

Field of Dreams

In 2004, Massad decided to build a regulation sized baseball field, complete with clay infield, fencing, sprinklers and bleachers, behind his upscale Grey Ledge development home in Shrewsbury. After neighbors cried foul, Mr. Massad and his wife just lost a legal battle with neighbors who say they didn’t buy season tickets to ball games when they purchased their homes. Massad, meanwhile, says he was just trying to provide a place for kids to play ball in a town that sorely lacks ball fields.

According to the Worcester Telegram, “It sounded pretty simple,” said Massad, 52, whose business is only coincidentally named Diamond Chevrolet. “The kids needed a place to play, so I built a field. It’s in the middle of nowhere, and I’ve never charged anyone to use it.” The Massads even obtained a special permit from the zoning board to allow for the field.

Massad Field, Shrewsbury. Credit: Worcester Telegram

As reported by the Telegram, the field may be isolated, set well in the rear of Massad’s 14-acre property, but the issue is the cars that go up and down the development to get there. In 2009, Massad built a private driveway and parking lot on his property, but players and fans still must use the private common driveway that lines the eight-home development and ends at Massad’s handsome brick Colonial at the top of the cul-de-sac.

HOA Covenants & Restrictions Control

The Grey Ledge Homeowners Association had recorded standard Covenants and Restrictions providing that:

“The Lots shall be used for single family residential purposes only.” It further provides that “[t]he acceptance of a Deed to a Lot by any Owner shall be deemed an acceptance of the provisions of this Master Declaration, the Trust and the By-Laws and rules and regulations of the Grey Ledge Association, as the same shall be amended from time to time, and an agreement by such Owner to be bound by them in all respects;” and that “[t]he Lots … shall have the mutual burden and benefit of the following restrictions on the use and occupation thereof, which restrictions, except as otherwise provided or allowed by law, shall run with the land.”

The Appeals Could held that, despite the Massads obtaining local zoning approval for the baseball field, it was not consistent with the character and planned use of the luxury development as a single family enclave. “As matter of law, the hosting of organized league baseball games (whether formal games or mere practices) for such leagues as American Legion Baseball and Worcester Heat violates the master declaration’s restriction to use for ‘single family residential purposes only,'” Justice Joseph Grasso held.

On legal grounds, the ruling is not surprising and correct, in my opinion. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Massad and his neighbors couldn’t have worked out a “collective bargaining revenue sharing” plan so the kids could just play ball.

___________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney and devoted Red Sox fan. Please contact him if you need legal assistance purchasing residential or commercial real estate.

{ 0 comments }

Joe Paterno, Penn St., Massachusetts Asset Protection and Fraudulent Property Transfers

by Rich Vetstein on November 19, 2011

in Bankruptcy, Liens, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation, Title Insurance

Joe Paterno Conveys Home to Wife For $1, “Love and Affection”

For topical reasons, I have had no reason to post about the despicable Penn St. child abuse scandal on this blog. Until now — when I came across an interesting New York Times article on Joe Paterno’s recent real estate activity. The Times reports that this summer “Joe Pa.” transferred title to his State College home to his wife for $1 and “love and affection.” Some say the transfer was intended to avoid the inevitable fallout from the Penn St. child abuse scandal and legal action brought by victims of the scandal. Joe Paterno’s attorney, however, says that this transfer was part of the Paternos’ long standing estate plan.

Fraudulent Transfers

The debate centers over what’s known legally as a fraudulent transfers. Fraudulent transfers are property conveyances made with the specific intent to place the property outside the reach of creditors, or made where “the debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and made it while insolvent.” The latter definition, in plain English, means the owner was broke and received less than market value for the sale of the property. Fraudulent transfers can be undone by the courts so creditors can tap into a home’s equity to satisfy legal judgments.

In Joe Paterno’s case, the $1.00 stated consideration for the transfer to his wife typically raises a red flag as a potential fraudulent transfer. If Paterno can prove that the transfer was indeed made as part of a legitimate estate plan, then he could avoid a fraudulent transfer determination. If the transfer is determined to be fraudulent so as to avoid liability for the child abuse scandal, the transfer to his wife can be undone by his creditors with the help of the court. And this is true even if Joe were to file bankruptcy. Moreover, the look-back period for fraudulent transfers is rather long–as long as 4 years under the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and even up to 10 years in the case of conveyances into trusts (where the debtor holds the beneficial interest) under 2005 bankruptcy law amendments.

Also, fraudulent transfers are typically excluded from coverage under owner’s title insurance policies. So if you purchased a property which later becomes the subject of a fraudulent transfer lawsuit, you may be on your own, which is a scary proposition.

Asset Protection, Homesteads and More

There’s nothing wrong or illegal about protecting your assets for the future. There are a myriad of legal and safe methods from protecting your property. But, if you wait until there is a problem, it’s usually too late to fix it. The same is true for asset protection planning. Simply put, do it as early as possible, well before creditors are chasing you down.

The first choice should almost always be to declare homestead protection on your principal residence. We’ve written about the new, enhanced Massachusetts homestead protection quite a bit. In a nutshell, a homestead will protect up to $500,000 in equity from most creditors. It’s a relatively simply form recorded with the county registry of deeds.

For more sophisticated asset protection devices such as trusts, family limited partnerships, LLC’s, and even offshore vehicles, I would recommend a reputable estate planning attorney. My friends at Pabian & Russell in Boston are a good place to start.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. Please contact him if you need legal assistance purchasing residential or commercial real estate.

 

{ 3 comments }

The Toga Party Is Over: Renting To Four Or More College Students Is Illegal Lodging House

by Rich Vetstein on November 15, 2011

in Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Rental Housing, Zoning

Update: SJC Reverses, Rules in favor of Landlords

Major Impact To College Rental Market: Landlords Cannot Rent To 4 or More Unrelated Adults In One Unit Without Lodging License

In a decision which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students near local colleges and universities and perhaps beyond Boston and Amherst, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that renting to 4 or more unrelated students in one apartment unit is an illegal “lodging house” unless a special license is obtained.

In City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties LLC (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 8, 2011), several landlords renting to Holy Cross students challenged the legality of the Massachusetts lodging housing law. The law requires a lodging housing license for any unit rented to four or more unrelated adults. City of Worcester officials cited the College Hill landlords for renting to 4 students in each apartment unit, without a proper license and without sprinkler systems. The students all signed a 12 month lease. The Housing Court sided with the city, and when the landlords balked, found them in contempt.

Lodging Housing Law

Although enacted nearly a hundred years ago in 1918, the court found that the lodging house law has relevance today with respect to the common practice of overcrowding persons in an unsuitable space and fire prevention. To obtain a lodging house license, an applicant must have sprinkler systems in the premises, which most landlords find too expensive to install.

The landlords argued that a group of four college students was a “family unit” not lodgers. While the landlords get credit for creative lawyering, the court didn’t buy the argument, holding that “we have no doubt that four or more unrelated adults, sharing housing while attending college, is not an arrangement that lends itself to the formation of a stable and durable household.”

Impact Outside College Towns?

Prior to this decision, housing authorities typically allowed 4 or more unrelated adults to occupy single apartments as roommates without a lodging license provided that minimum space requirements were met: 150 s.f. of living space for the first person, 100 s.f. for each additional person (3 occupants = 350 s.f. of living space); 70 s.f. of bedroom space for 1st person, plus 50 s.f. for additional person (120 s.f. for 2 persons in one bedroom).

After the College Hill decision, however, this generally accepted interpretation is now in question. The court did not mention adult roommates, nor did it make any distinction between undergraduates or adults. In my opinion, using the College Hill ruling, housing authorities, who want to crack down on unruly, crowded apartment dwellers, may seek to require lodging licenses for apartments occupied by 4 or more unrelated persons.

Boston: Rule Is 5+ Undergrads

In the City of Boston, a new zoning ordinance went into effect in 2008 prohibiting 5 or more undergraduate students from living in one apartment unit. We will see how the Boston Inspectional Services Dept. interprets the College Hill ruling.

________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate and landlord-tenant attorney. Please contact him if you need legal assistance with rental property legal issues.

{ 1 comment }

Electronic Signatures Gaining Acceptance and Popularity In Massachusetts Real Estate Transactions

by Rich Vetstein on November 12, 2011

in Closings, Electronic Closings, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Realtors, Technology

images-13Compliance Concerns Unwarranted

Electronic signature technology has been quickly gaining steam throughout the U.S. real estate community, and has now arrived in earnest in Massachusetts. Electronic signature software lets you send legally binding documents and get signatures anytime, anywhere from any Internet-connected device. It’s mostly used in Massachusetts on Offers and Purchase and Sale Agreements. I’ve been using DocuSign, and with a little learning curve, it’s been fantastic.

Realtors and attorneys who use electronic signature software can simply email encrypted contracts to their clients for signatures, rather than deal with travel, signing 4 original copies, and coordinating all the signatures. It’s especially helpful for out of state clients.

The Massachusetts real estate industry, traditionally conservative and slower to adopt new technology, has been lagging behind more progressive states such as California when it comes to adopting electronic signature technology. Plus, it hasn’t helped that technologically challenged attorneys are often involved in the drafting of the purchase and sale agreement.

In my informal survey of Realtors, the biggest questions were (1) are electronically signed contracts legal and valid, (2) how does it work: and (3) will lenders accept them?

Are Electronic Signatures Valid For Massachusetts Real Estate Contracts?

The answer is yes. Under the Massachusetts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), real estate contracts which are electronically signed in compliance with the law are legal and valid.

Electronic signature legislation was adopted over 10 years ago. In 2000, Congress enacted the E-SIGN law which validates certain contracts in electronic form and electronic signatures across the country. In 2004, Massachusetts adopted its UETA, codified in Mass. General Laws Chapter 100G, which is essentially adopts and updates the federal E-SIGN law. Lawmakers designed UETA and E-Sign to recognize that “a signature, contract, or other record relating to a transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.” The Massachusetts UETA provides, simply, that “In a legal proceeding, evidence of a record or signature may not be excluded solely because it is in electronic form.”

For offers and purchase and sale agreements, I have formulated the following rider provision to ensure electronic signature validity and enforceability. Feel free to use it.

This Agreement may be executed by and through electronic signature technology which is in compliance with Massachusetts law governing electronic signatures, including but not limited to, DocuSign®.  Electronic signatures shall be considered as valid and binding as original, wet signatures.  Signatures, originally signed by hand, but transmitted via e-mail or fax shall also be deemed valid and binding original signatures.

How Does It Work?

There are several electronic signature systems out there, including EchoSign, eOriginal, and DocuSign, which I use. All three providers warrant full compliance with federal E-SIGN and state UETA law and their European counterparts.

Since I’ve been using DocuSign, here is a quick video overview how it works.

As the individual requesting that a document be DocuSigned, you control who signs by providing the signer’s email address and other contact information. The document is routed to the signer’s email with a request to sign. DocuSign records the signer’s IP address and a time stamp of the signing activity. In addition, a signer can opt to provide geo-location information at the time of signing. If you require deeper levels of identity management, DocuSign offers additional authentication options, including: access code, knowledge-based ID check and biometric phone identification, among others.

As you can see, in many respects, an electronically signed contract is more secure and less susceptible to fraud and forgery than a traditional “wet” signature.

Are Lenders Accepting Electronically Signed Contracts?

Most are now. In fact, starting in 2012, FHA and the IRS will formally allow electronic signatures on loan and tax documents. However, I hear that some short sale lenders are still requiring wet signatures.

This is always the problem with adopting new technology. It’s disappointing because electronic signatures have been legal and valid for 10 years now. The law was passed by Congress and now all the states. As more and more agents and attorneys embrace the technology, we will see objections falling by the wayside, just as we did with faxed signatures.

QuickBooks Enterprise hosted on Citrix Virtual desktop is an perfect example of an accounting software used by real estate agents which lets you put a signature on a document without the hassles of scanning, printing, signing, and faxing. Instead, you can simply view documents online and add your signature electronically.

Agents, are you using electronic signatures, and if so, how has it helped your business and clients? Have you run into issues or objections from lenders or attorneys?

_________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate closing attorney who’s handled over 1,000 closings. Please contact him if you need legal assistance purchasing residential or commercial real estate.

{ 6 comments }

Realtor Liable For Failing To Verify Zoning District Of Property Listing

by Rich Vetstein on November 11, 2011

in Commercial Real Estate, Disclosures, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Realtors, Zoning

Realtors: You Must Independently Verify Property Information

In DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. (embedded below), the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently considered a Realtor’s duty to disclose and independently verify zoning information about a listing property.  The agent, relying on what turned out to be erroneous information supplied by his client, listed a Norwell property on Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and newspaper advertising as “zoned Business B.” The property was not in fact zoned for business use; it was zoned residential, thereby prohibiting the hair salon the buyer wanted to open at the property.

Despite the general disclaimer on the MLS system and in the purchase and sale agreement, the Court held that the Realtor could be held liable for misrepresentation and Chapter 93A violations due to providing this erroneous information.

The lesson to be learned for agents here is:

  • Never trust your client. I hate to say this, but when it comes to disclosures, it’s true.
  • Always independently verify information about the property from available public sources. Here, the agent could have simply gone down to the town planning office to verify whether the property was zoned commercial or residential. (The buyer or his attorney could have done so as well—this was a complete failure on all sides).
  • When it comes to zoning, which can be complex and variable, think twice before making blanket statements. Better to be 100% sure before going on record about whether certain uses are permissible. You can always get a zoning opinion from a local attorney.

_______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate attorney who often advises real estate agents on their duties and ethical obligations. Please contact him if you need legal assistance regarding a Massachusetts residential or commercial real estate transaction.

Dewolfe v. Hingham Realty

{ 3 comments }

Massachusetts Superior Court Again Endorses “Produce The Note” Foreclosure Defense

by Rich Vetstein on November 8, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Final Say Will Come Soon At SJC In Eaton v. FNMA

In Adamson v. MERS (embedded below), Superior Court Judge Raymond Brassard became the second Massachusetts trial judge to endorse the so-called “produce the note” defense in a foreclosure defense case. The question of whether a foreclosing lender must hold both the promissory note and the mortgage at the same time is now before the Supreme Judicial Court in the eagerly awaited case of Eaton v. Fannie Mae.

In Adamson, Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) claimed to be the holder of the mortgage at the behest of Deutsche Bank. America’s Servicing acted as the servicer. This was a classic sub-prime mortgage with $440,000 in principal at 8.5% interest, with a balloon payment of $370,000 at the end of 30 years. (No wonder the borrower couldn’t keep up with the payments).

The kicker in this case was when America’s Servicing sent the borrower a denial letter for a loan modification stating that it would not foreclose in the next 30 days under the federal HAMP program to give the borrower a chance to explore other modification option. It foreclosed the next day. Ouch.

Unification Theory

Relying on the Judge McIntyre’s earlier decision in the Eaton case, Judge Brassard was persuaded that Massachusetts still holds on to the unification theory where a foreclosing lender must hold both the note and the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. Judge Brassard expressed concern that separating the mortgage from the note could lead to double liability for the borrower (first, a foreclosure, then an attempt to collect the note).

In a ruling which will make foreclosure defense attorneys salivate, Judge Brassard found merit to the borrower’s claim that the lender and the servicer violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A, for foreclosing the day after the denial letter was issued, in violation of the 30 day safe harbor period.

Impact & What’s Next?

With two Superior Court judges endorsing this theory and several bankruptcy court judges rejecting it, all eyes are now on the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the Eaton v. Fannie Mae case which will be the final say in the matter. If the SJC accepts the unification theory, it will be a bigger bombshell than the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case last year.

Until the SJC decides the Eaton case, this ruling will continue to slow down the pace of foreclosures in Massachusetts. This will, in turn, keep the inventory of REO properties high, causing further drag on the troubled housing market.

Thank you to the blogging attorneys at the Massachusetts Land Use Monitor for bringing this case to my attention.

Adamson v. MERS Decision

{ 0 comments }

Doggy Doo-Doo Bags, Flippin’ the Bird, and Grumbling Signs: Complaining About Condominium Management Is A Constitutional Right, Court Holds

by Rich Vetstein on November 3, 2011

in Condominium Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

Old Colony Village Condominium v. Preu, Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 10-P-875 (Oct. 31, 2011). Click here for link to full text of case.

I love when constitutional law intersects with real estate law. It’s rare, and full of drama. A recent decision by the Appeals Court considered a condominium unit owner’s unalienable right to complain, moan and kvetch about condominium management. The First Amendment and the unit owner won this battle.

Doggy Doodie Bags, The Bird & Signs

The case is right out of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry’s dad, Morty, is embroiled in a condo trustee election battle at the “Del Boca Vista” condominium project in Florida. Mr. Preu and the condominium management had a history of, shall we say, bad blood between them. Mr. Preu ultimately went on a rampage, placing in the common area bags containing dog feces and labeled with the name of board president Gerard Ritzinger, apparently in response to Preu’s belief that Ritzinger had allowed his dog to defecate in an area in which it was forbidden. He gave the middle finger to condo trustees walking through the hall and to security cameras. He wrote nasty memos on his condo fee checks. He also obstructed common area fire doors. Lastly, he posted signs in the common area and a note on a unit owner’s door about the cleanliness of the condominium.

The trial judge found that the bag of doggy doo-doo and messing with fire doors violated the condo rules, but that the posting of signs, flipping the Bird, and the nasty memos were protected speech under the First Amendment. The Appeals Court only considered the free speech issue.

Check Your Free Speech Rights At The Door?

The Court held that condominium unit owners do not check their First Amendment rights at the condominium door. “A condominium association does not have as free a hand in restricting the speech of unit owners in the common areas in which those owners share an undivided property interest as another property owner might in dealing with a stranger on his or her property,” the court held. Accordingly, the court ruled that Preu’s posting of signs, flipping the middle finger and nasty memos — although not the most civil of behaviors — were protected First Amendment speech which could not be punished under condominium by-laws and rules.

Lessons to be Learned…

So what’s the take-away from this case?

For prospective condo buyers, know what you are getting yourself into before buying a condominium unit. Ask for the condo meeting minutes going 3 years back to see whether there are a history of internal dysfunction and disputes like the Old Colony Village Condo.

For condominium trustees and management, the lesson is a bit tougher. While you don’t want to put up with a lot of over-the-top cr*p from unit owners, think twice about starting World War III litigation like this case. The only person in this dispute who made out well is the condo board attorney, as this dispute easily ran over $25,000 in legal fees through a trial and an appeal. Was that a solid investment of condo funds by the board? Over dog poop? Probably not.

___________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Condominium Real Estate Attorney. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 1 comment }

Trick or Tree! Fallen Tree and Downed Power Line Questions After Halloween N’or Easter

by Rich Vetstein on October 31, 2011

in Boundaries, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety

Tree Damage At My House, Sudbury MA

It was only 3 months ago I was blogging about fallen trees and downed power lines in the wake of Hurricane Irene. Well, here we go again with the Halloween N’or Easter Storm 2011 with the same questions and answers. As you can see to my right, I woke up to a huge limb across my front lawn, which luckily didn’t snap my lines or hit my house! For those less unfortunate, I will outline the law again.

Who Is Responsible If My Neighbor’s Tree Falls On My Property?

The short answer is that, legally speaking, your neighbor is not liable for a healthy tree falling down during a major storm event. That is considered an “Act of God” for which no one is legally liable (except God of course, but I think he enjoys some type of legal immunity–I’m not sure, I’ll have to research that one). So, you will have to make a claim under your homeowner’s insurance policy for the damage caused by the neighbor’s tree.

As the court stated in the 1983 case of Ponte v. DaSilva:

The failure of a landowner to prevent the blowing or dropping of leaves, branches, and sap from a healthy tree onto a neighbor’s property is not unreasonable and cannot be the basis of a finding of negligence or private nuisance. Of course, a neighbor has the right to remove so much of the tree as overhangs his property. To impose liability for injuries sustained as a result of debris from a healthy tree on property adjoining the site of the accident would be to ignore reality, and would be unworkable. No case has been brought to our attention in which liability has been imposed in such circumstances

On the other hand, if the neighbor’s tree was diseased or decayed, was known to be at risk of falling and the neighbor ignored it, there could be negligence and liability. Either way, if you have homeowner’s insurance, the insurance companies will sort out fault and blame.

{ 5 comments }

Will This HARP Carry A Tune? Obama Revamps Underwater Refinance Program

by Rich Vetstein on October 25, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Mortgages

Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) Revamped

Homeowners who have not been able to refinance because they are “underwater” — their loans are more than the value of their home due to depressed real estate values — are being thrown a lifeline by the Obama Administration’s latest housing market rescue plan, announced yesterday.

Regulators are revamping a program rolled out in 2009, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, which lets borrowers with homes whose values have dropped to refinance. So far, only 894,000 borrowers have used it, of which just 70,000 are significantly underwater. The refinancing program is open to homeowners whose mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae (FNMA) or Freddie Mac (FMCC), the two government-controlled mortgage giants whose rescue three years ago has cost taxpayers $141 billion to date.

The FHFA said the changes could at least double the number of homeowners enrolled. Analysts at Barclays Capital, however, estimated that between 1.9 million and 3.1 million homeowners could be eligible for help.

But underwater homeowners, as long as they have made all their mortgage payments on time in the past six months and meet a few other basic criteria, such as being gainfully employed, would be eligible for a new refinance product just rolled out by the Obama Administration.

According to Scott Van Voorhis at Boston.com, an estimated 230,000 homeowners across Massachusetts are underwater on their mortgages, owing an average of $120,000 more than what their properties are actually worth now. The savings could prove substantial, with $3,000 in savings each year on a $200,000 mortgage that is refinanced from 6 percent down to 4.5 percent, according to this explanatory piece put out by the Associated Press.

Given higher home prices here in Greater Boston, that could amount to $6,000 in savings a year for a homeowner with a $400,000 mortgage — nothing to sneeze at.

If this HARP finally sings a tune, it will be cause for joy among borrowers, mortgage bankers, and closing attorneys across the state. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate closing attorney. Please contact him if you need a mortgage referral or assistance with a refinance or purchase transaction.

{ 1 comment }

← Previous Entries