Realtors, are you using the most current contingencies and language in your Offers? Do you know the most current Fannie Mae/FHA condo rules and how they will impact your condo sale? Want to know the latest on the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling and the foreclosure title mess? How can you avoid last minute crises? All these questions and more will be answered in our upcoming free webinar.
One Hour Complementary Webinar: An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Cure: Strategies & Teamwork To Avoid Deal Disasters
November 1, 2011, starting at 11:00am EST.
Presented by: Richard Vetstein, Esq. and Marc Canner, Esq. of TitleHub Closing Services and Brian Cavanaugh of MetLife Loans.
No Easy Fix For Defective Foreclosure Titles After U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Ruling
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion today in the much anticipated Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez case considering property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures in the aftermath of the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling last January. (Text of case is embedded below). Where Ibanez consider the validity of foreclosures plagued by late-recorded or missing mortgage assignments, Bevilacqua is the next step, considering what happens when lenders sell defective foreclosure titles to third party purchasers. Previously, I discussed the oral argument in the case here and detailed background of the case here.
The final ruling is mix of bad and good news, with the bad outweighing the good as fixing defective Massachusetts foreclosure titles just got a lot harder and more expensive. But, contrary to some sensationalist headlines, the sky is not falling down as the majority of foreclosures performed in the last several years were legal and conveyed good title. Bevilacqua affects those minority percentage of foreclosures where mortgage assignments were not recorded in a timely fashion under the Ibanez case and were otherwise conducted unlawfully. Importantly, Bevilacqua does not address the robo-signing controversy, which may or may not be considered by the high court in another case.
The Bad News
First the bad news. The Court held that owners cannot bring a court action to clear their titles under the “try title” procedure in the Massachusetts Land Court. This is the headline that the major news outlets have been running with, but it was not a surprise to anyone who has been following the case. Contrary to the Daily Kos, the court did not take the property away from Bevilacqua. He never held good title it in the first place–and you can blame the banksters for that. If you don’t own a piece of property (say the Brooklyn Bridge), you cannot come into court and ask a judge to proclaim you the owner of that property, even if the true owner doesn’t show up to defend himself. It’s Property Law 101.
The Good News
Next the good news. 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. Unfortunately, the SJC did not provide the real estate community with any further guidance as to how best to resolve these complicated title defects.
Background: Developer Buys Defective Foreclosure Title
Frank Bevilacqua purchased property in Haverhill out of foreclosure from U.S. Bank. Apparently, Bevilacqua invested several hundred thousand dollars into the property, converting it into condominiums. The prior foreclosure, however, was bungled by U.S. Bank and rendered void under the Ibanez case. Mr. Bevilacqua (or presumably his title insurance attorney) brought an action to “try title” in the Land Court to clear up his title, arguing that he is the rightful owner of the property, despite the faulty foreclosure, inasmuch as the prior owner, Rodriguez, was nowhere to be found.
Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) closed the door on Mr. Bevilacqua, dismissing his case, but with compassion for his plight.
“I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote.
Given the case’s importance, the SJC took the unusual step of hearing it on direct review.
No Standing To “Try Title” Action In Land Court
The SJC agreed with Judge Long that Bevilacqua did not own the property, and therefore, lacked any standing to pursue a “try title” action in the Land Court. The faulty foreclosure was void, thereby voiding the foreclosure deed to Bevilacqua. The Court endorsed Judge Long’s “Brooklyn Bridge” analogy, which posits that if someone records a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, then brings a lawsuit to uphold such ownership and the “owner” of the bridge doesn’t appear, title to the bridge is not conveyed magically. The claimant in a try title or quiet title case, the court ruled, must have some plausible ownership interest in the property, and Bevilacqua lacked any at this point in time.
The court also held, for many of the same reasons, that Bevilacqua lacked standing as a “bona fide good faith purchaser for value.” The record title left no question that U.S. Bank had conducted an invalid foreclosure sale, the court reasoned.
Door Left Open? Re-Foreclosure In Owner’s Name?
A remedy left open, however, was whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together and conduct new foreclosure sales in their name to clear their titles. The legal reasoning behind this remedy is rather complex, but essentially it says that Bevilacqua would be granted the right to foreclosure by virtue of holding an “equitable assignment” of the mortgage foreclosed upon by U.S. Bank. There are some logistical issues with the current owner conducting a new foreclosure sale and it’s expensive, but it could work.
That is if the SJC rules in the upcoming Eaton v. FNMA case that foreclosing parties do not need to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage when they foreclose. An adverse ruling in the Eaton case could throw a monkey wrench into the re-foreclosure remedy–it would also be an even bigger bombshell ruling than Ibanez, as it would throw into question the foreclosure of every securitized mortgage in Massachusetts.
In Bevilacqua’s case, he did not conduct the new foreclosure sale, so it was premature for the court to rule on that issue. Look for Bevilacqua to conduct the new foreclosure and come back to court again. The SJC left that option open.
Other Remedies & What’s Next?
The other remedy to fix an Ibanez defect, which is always available, is to track down the old owner and obtain a quitclaim deed from him. This eliminates the need for a second foreclosure sale and is often the “cleanest” way to resolve Ibanez titles.
Another option is waiting out the 3 year entry period. Foreclosure can be completed by sale or by entry which is the act of the foreclosure attorney or lender representative physically entering onto the property. Foreclosures by entry are deemed valid after 3 years have expired from the certificate of entry which should be filed with the foreclosure. It’s best to check with a real estate attorney to see if this option is available.
The last resort is to demand that the foreclosing lender re-do its foreclosure sale. The problem is that a new foreclosure could open the door for a competing bid to the property and other logistical issues, not to mention recalcitrant foreclosing lenders and their foreclosure mill attorneys.
Title insurance companies who have insured Ibanez afflicted titles have been steadily resolving these titles since the original Ibanez decision in 2009. I’m not sure how many defective foreclosure titles remain out there right now. There certainly could be a fair amount lurking in titles unknown to those purchasers who bought REO properties from lenders such as U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, etc. If you bought such a property, I recommend you have an attorney check the back title and find your owner’s title insurance policy. Those without title insurance, of course, have and will continue to bear the brunt of this mess.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure title defect matters & cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.
Benjamin Franklin once said famously that “the only certainties in life are death and taxes.” That’s certainly true in real estate practice. Today, I will go over how real estate passes when the owner dies – with a will or without a will – and how the probate process affects the real estate process.
Tenancy by the Entirety
Married couples in Massachusetts are recommended to hold real estate as “tenants by the entirety.” It’s a special form of joint tenancy for married couples. If one spouse dies, the surviving spouse succeeds to full ownership of the property, by-passing probate. By law, tenants by the entirety share equally in the control, management and rights to receive income from the property. Property cannot be “partitioned” or split in a tenancy by the entirety. A tenancy by the entirety also provides some creditor protection in case one spouse gets into financial distress as creditors cannot lien the non-debtor spouse’s interest in the property.
Death Without A Will—Intestacy Laws
Clients were often surprised to learn that when one spouse dies without a will, the law of intestacy in Massachusetts leaves a portion of the estate to the surviving spouse and a portion to the decedent’s children. This is changing as of January 2012 with Massachusetts’ adoption of the Uniform Probate Code. Under the “UPC,” if a spouse with children of the marriage dies, the surviving spouse gets the entire estate, including the marital home. If there’s no surviving “descendant,” or child, of the deceased, but a surviving parent of the deceased, the surviving spouse gets the first $200,000 of the estate, plus 75% of the balance of the estate. The laws of inheritance remain rather complicated to explain fully here. A good guide to the new Uniform Probate Code can be found here.
Death With A Will — Testate
The basic rule is that if the owner dies with a will, which includes a power to sell real estate, the executor or administrator of the estate is generally authorized to convey title without further authority from the probate court. If the will does not provide for a power of sale, the executor will have to obtain a license to sell from the probate court. If a final account has been filed and allowed, the heirs (in the case of an intestacy) or devisees (in the case of a will) are able to convey title.
Missing Probates
If the title examination turns up an interest that is not accounted for by a probate, and the death of the interested party occurred less than 25 years ago, a probate may need to be opened to convey the property. Deaths over 25 years old where a special affidavit has been filed, may pass without probate.
Federal & Massachusetts Estate Tax Liens
A federal and state estate tax lien arises immediately upon death and attaches at the time of death to the gross estate of the decedent. The gross estate includes all property, wherever situated, that the decedent owned or in which the decedent had an interest at the time of death. The threshold for federal gross estates for 2011 and 2012 is $5 Million for an individual and $10 Million for a couple. The Massachusetts estate threshold remains at $1 Million. For estates below those amounts, the executor must merely file a simple Affidavit of No Estate Tax Due. Estates over the thresholds must file the more complicated release of lien from the Department of Revenue which requires the filing of a full estate tax return.
Bought A House? Get A Will!
Julie Ladimer, Esq.
Danielle Van Ess
After every closing, I always have a chat with my new buyers about setting up a will and other estate planning vehicles. It’s very important on all fronts. For those in the MetroWest area, I recommend Julie McQuade Ladimer, Esq. of Framingham (email: [email protected]; Tel: (508) 788-0028. For those on the South Shore, I recommend Danielle Van Ess, Esq. in Hingham (email: [email protected]; Tel: 781.740.0848. Both are very good and well regarded estate planning attorneys.
____________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate attorney who’s handled over 1,000 closings. Please contact him if you need legal assistance purchasing residential or commercial real estate.
Massachusetts Summary Process Evictions: An Unlevel Playing Field For Landlords
How do you evict a tenant in Massachusetts? In Massachusetts, evictions are called “summary process.” According to the rules governing eviction cases, summary process is supposed to be “just, speedy, and inexpensive.” In practice, however, summary process can be anything but that. In fact, as I always inform my landlord clients, Massachusetts is one of the most tenant friendly states in the country, and an eviction can be costly, frustrating and unfair to landlords. In some cases, it can take many months to evict a tenant.
Further, Massachusetts eviction practice is loaded with traps for the unwary and procedural complexities for landlords. Landlords who represent themselves do so at their own peril and will often arrive at court with their cases dismissed for not following these requirements. It’s not a do-it-yourself situation.
Grounds For Eviction
A. Non-payment
There are several common grounds for evicting a tenant. The most common is for non-payment of rent. In these cases, the landlord must send the tenant a statutory 14 day “notice to quit” before starting the eviction process. The 14 day notice to quit must be drafted carefully, and the best practice is to have it served by a constable or sheriff to ensure proof of delivery. The landlord must prove in court that the tenant received the notice, and service by constable or sheriff will automatically qualify as “good service.” Certified mail is not good enough as tenants can avoid pickup. Having an experienced eviction attorney draft the notice to quit can prevent have your case being “dead on arrival.”
B. No-Fault
Another common ground for eviction is for termination of a 30 day tenancy at will, otherwise known as a no-fault eviction. Again, a 30 day notice to quit must be served on the tenant before commencing an eviction. Landlords often trip up on this type of notice with short months. In practice, judges will often give tenants in no-fault evictions a bit more leeway in terms of vacating the premises.
C. For cause
“For cause” evictions encompass the range of bad behavior by tenants in violation of lease provisions. It could be illegal activity, drug use, excessive noise, uncleanliness, harassment of other residents, non-approved “roommates” and the like. Like all other evictions, the landlord must issue a notice to quit to the tenant stating the specifics of the offenses. “For cause” evictions are the most involved of all evictions as the landlord must offer proof by way of live testimony of the tenant’s violations of the lease. Getting police officers to show up for an eviction hearing can be challenging. For drugs and other illegal activity, Massachusetts also has a special expedited eviction process.
Starting an eviction requires the preparation and service of a Summary Process Summons and Complaint. You can choose to file your case in the local District Court or the Housing Court which is specialized to hear evictions. The Housing Court fees are less expensive, but can be busier. Some Housing Court judges have the reputation of being tenant or landlord friendly as well. Some would probably be happier retired and playing golf. It’s a tough job these days.
The summary process summons and complaint form is complicated to the layperson. It must be first served by a constable or sheriff on the tenant. Then, no less than 7 days after, it must be filed with the court by the “entry date,” which is always a Monday. The hearings are almost always on Thursday morning. Again, it’s best to have an experienced Massachusetts eviction attorney handle the legal paperwork.
Tenant Defenses and Counterclaims
Through the use of discovery requests, defenses and counterclaims, tenants in Massachusetts have ample legal means to delay and beat evictions. All tenants have a right to file “discovery” – formal requests for information and documents – from the landlord, which will automatically delay the hearing for two weeks. The tenant also may assert defenses and counterclaims against the landlord. These can range from improper notice or service, state Sanitary Code violations, no heat/hot water, failure to make repairs, retaliation, discrimination, and violations of the security deposit law—which carries triple damages and attorneys’ fees. (See my prior post on security deposits). Regardless of the merits of such claims, these defenses and counterclaims make the eviction process more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive.
Eviction sessions are very busy. In some courts, there are over 100 cases stacked up on any one day and only one judge to hear them all. Accordingly, the courts will encourage parties to work out their differences on their own through mediation which is an informal sit-down between the parties to discuss ways to resolve the case. Some courts have housing specialists who can preside over the mediation session. Mediation is always non-binding so if no agreement can be reached you can proceed to a trial.
In the Housing Court, there are trained housing specialists who facilitate the mediation process. There are many advantages for landlords to mediation, and I almost always recommend giving it a try. The end result of a mediation is for the parties to sign an agreement for judgment. In a non-payment case, you can structure a payment plan and/or voluntary move-out. For a “cause” eviction, you can provide for a “last chance” agreement or move-out. The major benefit for landlords is that an agreement for judgment becomes a binding court order and the judge is supposed to enforce it upon proof of a violation. It also shows the judge that the landlord has been reasonable and accommodating. Experienced Massachusetts eviction attorneys will also make the tenants waive their rights to appeal and right to delay the case any further so as to avoid last minute requests for more time to vacate.
On the other hand, sometimes the situation is untenable and you have to go before the judge. Some judges hold a basic hearing, giving both sides the opportunity to speak. Some judges, particularly in the Housing Court, are more formal and require an actual trial with live witnesses and exhibits. I’ve had hearings last one minute and jury trials in eviction cases go on for days. But I’m always prepared to put on a case on for trial, as I always have my client present in court or on standby.
Appeals
Tenants in eviction cases do have a fairly robust right of appeal which can greatly delay resolution of the case. (A good reason in and of itself to do an agreement for judgment waiving appeal rights). However, in certain cases, the landlord can ask the court to impose an appeal bond so the tenant must pay rent into court to proceed with the appeal. Most tenants do not have the financial ability to do that, so that will terminate the appeal.
If you have any questions or need assistance with a Massachusetts summary process eviction, please contact me via email at [email protected] or by phone at 508-620-5352.
__________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts summary process & eviction attorney who has handled over 2,000 eviction cases all across Massachusetts. For help with a landlord tenant matter, please email him at [email protected] or call him at 508-620-5352.
I just finished watching the oral arguments in the SJC case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, The webcast should be up soon on the SJC Website. You can read the briefs in the case here.
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. If the SJC rules against lenders, it will be another national headline story — potentially bigger than U.S. Bank v. Ibanez.
Quick Recap: Ultimately, the SJC will have to decide how old common law decided in the late 1800′s now applies to mortgages in the 21st century with securitization, servicers and MERS. Does the law need to be modernized? I think it’s time. Unlike the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, this one is much harder to handicap. So I’m not even going to try!
For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case, I’ll state them again.
Borrower Able To Stop Foreclosure
As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.
Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.
The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.
Pointed Questions During Oral Argument
The oral argument was pretty interesting with the majority of the justices’ questions centered around questions of the mortgage servicer’s authority to foreclose or enter into a loan modification, Fannie Mae’s role and the role of MERS. Here’s my running diary of the argument.
Fannie Mae Arguments
Attorney Richard Briansky, who did a solid job, represented the Fannie Mae side, and started first. Judge Gants asked whether there was any evidence that Ms. Eaton, the borrower, failed to pay insurance or real estate taxes to justify foreclosure on other grounds? There was no evidence; purely breach of note, replied Briansky.
The justices raised a question of the authority of the signer of the mortgage assignment. The signer was a “Monica” who worked for Green Tree Servicing and had signatory authority for MERS. Of course, this is the robo-signing question which is being raised across the county. (Read our post on the high percentage of robo-signed documents found at the Essex Registry of Deeds here). The justices asked was she employee or MERS or Green Tree? Dual roles. However, they agreed that this issue is not properly raised in this case.
Justice Cordy asked whether Green Tree, the servicer, was in a position to extinguish the debt? The answer was no. The loan proceeds are held in trust for note holder.
Justice Botsford was worried about the possibility of double liability where the note holder sues Eaton on note. Never been an issue, says Briansky.
Justice Lenk asked who determines whether or not to foreclose? Attorney Briansky said Green Tree, because it has been collecting payments and acts as servicer. Now the justices started exploring the contractual relationship between servicer and note holder. The discussed turned to the servicer’s authority for loan mods, etc.
Justice Botsford had questions over who could make important decisions under mortgage.
Justice Duffly asked about the status of MERS as nominee. It’s a “tripartite relationship,” explained Briansky. The justices seemed very skeptical of the MERS relationship.
Justice Ireland, citing the friend of the court brief, asked Briansky point blank whether Massachusetts law required unity of the note and mortgage holder at foreclosure. Briansky countered with argument that times have changed and current complex mortgage securitization requires a modernization of the law.
Justice Duffly pointed out that the proliferation of servicers and MERS has created a unique situation and is bad for consumers. She thinks that there is a disincentive for servicers to modify loans; that they make more money for foreclosure. An interesting point.
Justice Lenk asked a very good question: What would preclude Fannie Mae from holding the mortgage? I can tell you that as a matter of policy, Fannie Mae prefers not to hold mortgages themselves, instead letting the servicers do the “dirty work” of defaults and foreclosures.
That concluded the Fannie Mae side.
Eaton Arguments
Now for the Eaton side, Sam Levine, a Harvard Law student, argued under a SJC Rule permitting third year law students to argue in court. What a thrill it must have been for a law student who hasn’t even passed the Bar, to be arguing a major case in front of the SJC. However, his inexperienced showed at times, as he often slipped into prepared remarks when the justices where looking for an answer far more specific. But all in all, the kid did OK for not even being a real lawyer yet.
The justices ask about all the lower court and bankruptcy court decisions holding that you don’t need pure unity of note holder and mortgage holder to foreclose. Levine stood his ground on the older cases holding that this isn’t the law. The justices will have to grapple with whether the law needs to be modernized.
Justice Gants asked what’s wrong with an agent acting as servicer? Levine said for servicing it’s fine, but for foreclosure, the principal must foreclose.
There was an extended discussion over the standard MERS mortgage form as to MERS’ authority to invoke power of sale and foreclose. The justices appeared confused as to who has the right to invoke the power of sale and foreclose. Does MERS or does the lender, or both? And who is MERS’ successors and assigns?
Justice Cordy asked hasn’t borrower agreed in the mortgage that MERS can foreclose? Didn’t she waive any common law right that the note holder and mortgage holder be united for foreclosure. Good question.
Justice Lenk asked that if Fannie Mae had foreclosed, everything would have been fine. That’s ultimately true.
Justices Cordy and Spina were definitely getting frustrated with the simple fact that Eaton simply didn’t pay mortgage. Look for them to vote to reverse the lower court opinion in this case.
What’s Next?
The SJC will release a final opinion within 120 days or so. A lot of the questioning centered on side issues not squarely relevant in the case. The question in the case is simply whether a foreclosing lender must hold both the note and mortgage at foreclosure. Clearly, the justices have been reading the press reports about the foreclosure crisis and are trying to be responsive to it. But they have to decide cases based on the facts before them. Again, I’m not going to try to handicap this one, but I have a feeling it will be a close decision with concurring and dissenting opinions. If the SJC rules against lenders, it will be another national headline story, rest assured.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.
Just a reminder to those following the important SJC case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n — oral arguments will be held on Monday, October 3rd, starting at 9am. You can view the oral argument live via webcast through the SJC Website. You can read the briefs in the case here. Interestingly, one of the foremost commentators on the mortgage meltdown, Adam Levitin of Georgetown Law, has filed his own friend of the court brief.
As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court will consider the “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases — whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts.
Look for a new blog post on Tuesday after I watch the arguments.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney. He has handles many foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.
Unpaid condo fees and special assessments can be a real thorn in any condominium’s side, especially smaller condos. Not only do unpaid condo fees threaten the financial health of a condominium, but a high delinquency rate can run afoul of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and FHA condominium lending guidelines, thereby hindering the sale of a unit.
Fortunately, the Massachusetts Condominium Act, General Laws Chapter 183A, provides condominium trustees and managers with a fair amount of ammunition to recover those unpaid condo fees and special assessments. The law provides that condominium common expense assessments (monthly condo fees) are a lien against condominium units from the date each assessment becomes due, and that unit owners are personally liable for their share of condominium common expenses, including late charges, fines, penalties, interest, and all costs of collection. Ultimately, the condominium trust can foreclose its lien and sell the unit at foreclosure auction.
Massachusetts Super-priority Condo Lien
The real teeth of the Condominium Act is the “super-lien” provision. A properly filed condo lien has “super-priority” over the first mortgage on a unit for up to 6 months worth of unpaid condo fees, plus all attorneys’ fees and collection costs. Required 60 and 30 day statutory notices must be sent to the mortgage lender and unit owner prior to filing the lien. Typically, the mortgage lender will not want to allow a condo lien to negatively affect the priority of its mortgage, so it will pay the unpaid condo fees and other charges, then charge them back to the borrower/unit owner. Even in the case of foreclosure of a unit, the super-lien will continue to roll-over (up to 6 months worth).
6d Certificate
For all sales of Massachusetts condominiums, Mass. General Laws Ch. 183A, sec. 6(d) requires that the condo trustees sign a certificate verifying the outstanding condo fees assessed against the unit, if any. The term “6d” certificate refers to that statutory section of the Condominium Act, section 6(d). Lenders and their closing attorneys will require a “clean” 6d which states there are no unpaid fees. The recording of a clean 6d certificate will prevent the association from ever filing a lien against that unit.
No Right to Withhold
Another favorable aspect of the lien law is that a unit owner is not allowed to withhold payment even if he disputes the charges. There is no right to set-off. If the unit owner is unhappy or disputes the validity of the assessment, that’s too bad. He must pay the fees under protest, and file a suit challenging the legality of the assessment.
Collection Against Tenants
Another helpful remedy in the case of absentee unit owners is that the condo trust has a right to collect rents from tenants of non-paying unit owners. The condominium association will notify the tenants in writing that they are required to forward all future rent payments to the condo trust until the unpaid balance is satisfied. This typically gets the prompt attention of the unit owner.
Hey there. I recently had an opportunity to shoot a video about myself and my philosophy. I’d like to share it with you. I’m not the best in front of the camera, but I’m working on it. Video is quickly replacing the written word. Of course, as you know, writing and blogging is much more comfortable for me than being all “Hollywood.”
The video director asked me what makes me different than other real estate attorneys? Well first, I grew up around real estate, tagging along with my mom to open houses. She was a Realtor in the Metrowest Mass. area for 25 years. I did my homework at her realty office when MLS printed off a dot matrix printer. I knew what a “P&S” agreement was at age 8. Real estate is in my blood.
Second, I’m what I like to call “ultra-responsive.” Real estate is a 24/7 business, and the attorney who doesn’t get that, well, doesn’t get it. I’m available whenever my Realtors, loan officers and clients need me — via text, email, phone, fax, even Facebook and Twitter.
I love what I do. Everyday I get to help people buy, sell, finance and resolve disputes involving their real estate. It’s incredibly rewarding. One day I’ll help a young couple with a baby purchase their first home. Another day I’ll navigate a client through the complex Massachusetts court system. I also help folks start new businesses, counsel them on employment issues, and other legal stuff for small businesses like mine.
If you like this video and want one for yourself, shoot me an email. I’m very friendly with the gentleman who owns the video company.
Social media and blogging is a foundation of my marketing plan. It’s been so successful for me that I have always tried to share the benefits with my referral partners — real estate agents and mortgage professionals. Along with my law partner Marc Canner, we started a company dedicated to assisting real estate agents with their own social media. We named the company, HubConnected–a little play on Boston and the theory that social media should be the “hub” of any agent’s marketing platform.
We just shot a new professional promotional video featuring some of our most successful agent-bloggers:
Chuck Silverston of Prudential Unlimited — Brookline (www.chuckteam.com)
The blogs have been incredibly worthwhile for these agents as well as for the other 20+ other agents in our blogging network. One agent generated $8 Million in new sales revenue last year alone from her blog!
If you are interested in starting a blog or custom Facebook page, please contact Heather Allen at HubConnected ([email protected]) for more information.
I’m always around to bounce ideas off of too! Good luck and keep on truckin’!
Richard Vetstein is a social media expert for HubConnected LLC, in addition to being a nationally recognized real estate attorney. Rich was recently selected as a nominee for Inman News’ 100 Most Influential in Real Estate. Rich was a recent speaker at the Social E Conference in Newport, RI sponsored by the Warren Group/Banker & Tradesman.
During this Great Recession, we’ve been closely covering the foreclosure crisis from a real estate law perspective. I am not a bankruptcy attorney, and don’t claim to be. So I thought: why don’t we have an experienced bankruptcy attorney guest blog about the interplay between foreclosure and bankruptcy? Attorney Matthew P. Trask, a partner with Kelsey & Trask, P.C. in Natick, MA, was kind enough to do just that. Matt writes an awesome bankruptcy law blog, Don’t Go Alone. Welcome, Attorney Trask!
The Bankruptcy Automatic Stay, A Valuable Last Resort
Thanks Rich. It’s great to be here.
On September 13, 2011, CNBC reported that foreclosures owned by Bank of America surged more than 200%. “August traditionally is a high month for foreclosure actions, so part of the increase might be seasonal,” says RealtyTrac’s Rick Sharga. “[The increase is attributable to] any number of reasons – but with 3.5 million delinquent loans, this had to happen sooner or later.”
Continuing economic troubles coupled with high unemployment means that many homeowners are more than 90 days past due on their mortgage payments, setting the stage for the lender to take back title to the property, a legal process known as foreclosure. Oftentimes, consumers aren’t just behind on mortgage payments but other consumer debts, such as credit cards, medical bills, and even taxes. In addition to foreclosure, consumers who have fallen behind on debt may also face lawsuits, wage garnishments or asset seizures as creditors move to seek payment.
If you are between a rock and a financial hard place, bankruptcy may be an option to eliminate or catch up on past-due debt, and give you time to reorganize your finances. Additionally, bankruptcy law protects debtors as soon as a case is filed. Immediately upon filing bankruptcy, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), dictates that no creditor may take any judicial or non-judicial collection efforts against the debtor or the debtor’s property. This is called the Automatic Stay.
The Automatic Stay means that a pending foreclosure of your home, collection calls, wage garnishments, asset seizure or lawsuits must immediately cease until either the bankruptcy is completed, or the creditor obtains specific permission from the bankruptcy court. The benefit of the automatic stay is that it creates additional time for the debtor to deal with logistical issues associated with the bankruptcy, housing, cash flow or simply gives a debtor “breathing room” to work with their bankruptcy and real estate attorneys to protect their assets, eliminate debt, without the risk of losing property or assets during that time. Any creditor who ignores the automatic stay is subject to significant penalties by the bankruptcy court.
In the case of a debtor who wishes to keep his or her home, but has fallen behind on payments and facing an imminent foreclosure, the Automatic Stay, coupled with a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy can stop the foreclosure in many cases. Filing a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition creates the opportunity for repayment of the arrears over a period of between three and five years, and, in certain instances, completely discharges a home equity line or second mortgage if the value of the property is less than the balance on the primary mortgage.
Even if a debtor has previously modified their mortgage, and the terms of the modification appear to waive the debtor’s automatic stay protections, Emergency Standing Order 10-2 effectively voids any provision of any loan modification or forbearance agreement which states that upon default of the lender, the benefits of the automatic stay are waived. Prior to Emergency Standing Order 10-2, if a modification included such a waiver, the bank or mortgage lender could proceed with a foreclosure or other collection actions despite the filing of a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
In summary, the automatic stay is a powerful tool available to individuals seeking bankruptcy protection, and is often key to any financial reorganization. If you have questions about how the bankruptcy code, including the automatic stay, may help brighten your financial future, speak to an attorney. Bankruptcy is a complex and technical process, but, if done correctly, can protect your assets and give you a fresh financial start.
______________________________________________
Attorney Matthew P. Trask is a partner with Kelsey & Trask, P.C., and represents business and consumer debtors and creditors before the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts. Kelsey & Trask, P.C. is a debt relief agency, helping clients file for relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
FNMA v. Nunez: Tenant Foreclosure Act Applied Retroactively
On September 6, 2011, in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez (embedded below), the Supreme Judicial Court considered for the first time the 13-month-old “Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties” Act which protects tenants living in foreclosed properties from eviction in certain circumstances. The issue was whether the Act applied retroactively, and the court answered “yes,” applying it “to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act’s effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date.”
Summary Of Act
The Act, passed in August 2010 and now codified in a new Mass. General Laws Chapter 186A, bans institutional lenders (not private parties) who own foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without “just cause.” What this means in plain English is that foreclosing lenders such as Fannie Mae cannot evict tenants of foreclosed properties unless they stop paying rent or commit serious lease violations such as illegal activity on the premises.
Loophole: Private Purchasers
There is a huge loophole in the Act however. It does not apply to private individuals who purchase properties at foreclosure. They are free to evict tenants for any reason. But, they must provide tenants with at least 90 day notice to move, and the tenant retains the right to ask for more time to leave in any eviction legal proceeding.
Impact: Slow Down In Sales of Foreclosed Properties
The impact of this ruling will be to expand the number of tenants who will be protected from eviction when their apartments fall into foreclosure. It will also slow down the pace of selling off REO and foreclosed properties to individual owners and investors who will now inherit tenants with expanded occupancy rights in foreclosed properties.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled over 500 eviction cases in the District and Housing Courts. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts landlord-tenant dispute.
Prospective real estate buyers tend to think of the “mortgage” as the contract they are signing with the bank. This is misleading. The promissory note is the actual contract to loan and borrow money between lender and borrower. The mortgage is the lender’s instrument, or more accurately, its security interest, to enforce that loan contract. This is an important distinction because, if for example, a couple purchases property or refinances, and the loan is taken out solely in the wife’s name, then lining up the correct parties on the signing documents becomes important. But before discussing how to properly configure the closing documents, it is important to understand the definitions.
The Deed
The deed is the legal instrument conveying an ownership interest of the property to a grantee (buyer). The deed is typically drafted by the seller’s attorney. It includes the grantor (seller), the grantee (buyer), the manner in which the buyer is taking title (the tenancy), the consideration (the amount of the purchase price), a legal description of the property, and a cite to the recording information of the prior deed. Click here for an example of a Massachusetts quitclaim deed.
The Promissory Note
The promissory note is the lending contract between the borrower and the lender. The note includes the name(s) of the borrower and the property address. It also includes the amount of the loan, the term (number of years), and the interest rate. The lender generates the note and uses a FannieMae/ Freddie Mac standard template which reflects that it is a uniform instrument. A typical note includes a provision of whether the loan is fixed or adjustable, contains a “no pre-payment fee” clause, and includes language that sets the deadline for the 15th of the month for the lender to receive payment (and sets out a late fee penalty). Click here for a standard form Fannie Mae promissory note.
The Mortgage
The mortgage is the lender’s security interest in the property. In Massachusetts, a “title state,” the borrower is conveying his ownership interest in the home to the lender, such interest would be exercised only in the event of default. Thus, the lender has a lien on the property, which gives it authority to foreclose in the event of continued non-payment. The mortgage is also a uniform instrument whose template is typically generated by the lender and designed and approved by the above-referenced government housing agencies. The only unique terms in the mortgage are the names of the borrowers, the property address and the exhibit which provides a legal description of the property. The rest of the mortgage is standard, providing that the borrower agrees to keep the property insured and maintained, make it her primary residence (unless it’s an investment loan), and not to contaminate the property with hazardous waste, among other requirements. Click here for a sample Massachusetts Fannie Mae mortgage.
Thus, to return to our example, if husband and wife purchase a home and only wife is to be on the loan, then the grantees on the deed are husband and wife, reflecting their ownership interest in the property. The note will contain only the wife (since she alone is taking out the loan). The mortgage however must contain both owners of the property since this instrument tracks the deed. Thus, the husband and wife are both on the mortgage.
After the closing attorney explains the deed, mortgage and promissory note, there are a stack of other loan documents and disclosure to review. We’ve written posts about all the important ones:
Attorney Marc E. Canner brings years of experience working closely with Buyers, Sellers, mortgage brokers, loan officers and realtors to provide expert counsel on closing residential real estate transactions. Marc is the founding partner of the Law Offices of Marc E. Canner and a founder of TitleHub Closing Services LLC.
Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?
In a rare “sua sponte” (on their own) direct appellate review, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear an appeal considering the controversial “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases and whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts.
This could be a very important decision — potentially as important as the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case issued in the spring. A ruling against the lenders could expose a gaping and fatal legal black hole with many foreclosure-bound mortgages that were hastily bundled and sold to Wall Street during the real estate boom years. A rejection of the borrower’s arguments as recently made by a bankruptcy judge in Worcester, however, could significantly reduce some MERS induced anxiety and heartburn presently being experienced by lenders and foreclosure attorneys.
The case is Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), SJC-11041. The court will hear arguments in October, with a decision coming several months later. The court is also seeking amicus, or friend of the court, briefs from interested parties.
Where’s The Note?
As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.
Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.
The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a well-reasoned 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.
Potential Impacts Far and Wide
As I mentioned before, a ruling that foreclosing lenders must produce both the note and mortgage held by the same entity would drastically alter existing foreclosure practice in Massachusetts, and may open existing foreclosures to legal challenge. Although I don’t practice in foreclosures, I do know that rarely, if ever, are properly endorsed and assigned promissory notes in the hands of lenders when they foreclose. As with this case, they are typically endorsed in blank, that is, to no one, and in storage somewhere in New Jersey or Ohio held by a loan servicer. In fact, obtaining such promissory notes from lenders can be nearly impossible. They are often lost, missing pages, or destroyed.
This case, which is typical, illustrates the problem with the entire system. According to Fannie Mae’s brief, after the loan funded, the note was indorsed in blank and allegedly transferred to Fannie Mae. How does an entity as sophisticated as Fannie Mae purchase a loan without getting the promissory note properly indorsed and assigned to it? God only knows. So the best Fannie could do was produce a copy of the note indorsed to no one. That’s just great…
The mortgage took a different path along the securitization trail. This was a MERS mortgage, so it was originally granted to MERS, the electronic registry who admittedly acts only as a “nominee” and holds no financial stake in the loan. A Mass. bankruptcy court judge recently voided the foreclosure of a MERS mortgage for some of these reasons. Now while the paper is held by Fannie Mae, the mortgage supposedly gets assigned to Green Tree, the loan servicer, which like MERS has no financial stake in the loan. Green Tree then conducts the foreclosure sale, although it has no real financial interest in the loan–that remains with Fannie Mae. Now it doesn’t take a Louis Brandeis to ask, why didn’t the mortgage get assigned to Fannie Mae, and why didn’t Fannie Mae conduct the foreclosure sale since it held all the financial cards in this transaction? I would love someone to explain this to me because I don’t get it, and I’m not the only one. At this point, the whole system is FUBAR.
Of course, a favorable ruling for lenders would preserve the status quo and business-as-usual atmosphere for foreclosures in Massachusetts, while upholding the effectiveness of the MERS mortgage. The SJC wasn’t afraid to drop a bombshell in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. Eaton v. Fannie Mae may be next. At the very least, the SJC joins a steady stream of jurists who have concerns about the way in which foreclosures are being conducted in a post-subprime world. When the decision comes down, I’ll be on it!
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.
I will get by. I will survive. —Touch of Grey, Jerry Garcia: Grateful Dead
Submerged home, Waterbury, VT
Lately, I’ve been doing a fair share of reflecting on what’s important in life and in work. I think Hurricane Irene had a lot to do with that. My family was without power for four days. I thought it was the end of the world. Literally. I bitched. I moaned. I complained to anyone who listened and even those who didn’t. I even wrote on the Facebook wall of our local state rep, complaining that he stop campaigning for U.S. Senate for a day and start lambasting NStar. Then I told my Facebook friends to start doing the same.
Closings were being pushed back due to re-inspections after the storm. Borrowers, agents and loan officers were all bent out of shape. We scrambled to get deals closed and everyone was super-stressed out, myself at the top of list.
Outwardly, I was trying to exude patience and calmness. But inside I was, well, pissed off! At the end of the power outage, I just stared into my work computer screen muttering “serenity now…serenity now” like Kramer on Seinfeld.
Then images of the massive destruction in Vermont started coming through. I saw some pictures of my friend Realtor Heidi Zizza’s flooded and destroyed Vermont office. I reflected. I quickly realized that I overreacted. Big time. Sure Irene was an inconvenience. But for me, that’s all it was. An inconvenience. I lost power for a few days. Big whoop. No wi-fi. No laptop. No TV. No Ipad. Oh, the horror!
For others not so fortunate, it was a disaster in every sense of the word, and their lives will never be the same.
I became so wrapped up in my own little world that I lost my sense of reality, my rudder. A lot of us have the tendency to do this, and we don’t take the time to reflect on what’s really important.
So now, I’m endeavoring to do more reflecting and far less self-absorption in all life affairs. To really practice patience. Not just on the outside, but in the inside too. To obtain that Zen like serenity which so few people (it seems) enjoy. It will make weeks like Hurricane Irene all the more bearable.
Given all the trees and branches which fell across New England, the pressing question of the day is, clearly, who is responsible if my neighbor’s tree or tree branch fell on my house, car, shed, patio, grill, etc. during the storm?
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.
Hurricane Irene Damage, Maryland (courtesy David Yarkin)
If It’s Wet, It’s Probably Not Covered. If It’s Wind, It Is Probably Covered.
What Type of Hurricane Damage Is Covered Under A Massachusetts Homeowners Insurance Policy?
I’m writing this post as I watch Hurricane Irene bore down on Massachusetts, scattering my lawn with tree branches and flickering my lights. My Facebook stream is filling with reports of power outages and basement flooding, but luckily I’ve been spared (for now). *Check that–we’ve had no power since 11am on Sunday, a live wire down on our street, and not an NStar crew to be found anywhere!
Being the dorky real estate attorney that I am, I naturally thought to myself, what type of hurricane damage, if any, is covered under a standard Massachusetts homeowner’s insurance coverage? Well, after some research the short answer is that if it’s wet, it’s probably not covered, but if it’s wind, it is probably covered.
Flooding and Water Damage
Flooding — defined by insurers as any water that rises from the ground or from the sky, including tidal waves, as well as destruction from rapid snow melts — aren’t covered by Massachusetts homeowner’s insurance policies. So the flooded basements from all this rain is likely not covered.
To get reimbursed for water damage, homeowners would need additional flood insurance, which is provided by the federal government but can be purchased through an agent or insurance company. The average flood premium is about $600 annually, but rates go up to nearly $6,000 for the highest-risk coastal properties, according to the National Flood Insurance Program.
Homeowners who live in flood zones probably have flood insurance already: Many lenders won’t provide these home buyers with a mortgage unless they’ve signed up for flood coverage. These homeowners can rest (relatively) easy; if their home floods, flood insurance will pay for that damage. Those unlucky homeowner’s in the interior parts of the state aren’t so lucky.
Wind Damage/Downed Trees
Basic homeowners insurance policies do, however, typically pay for damage caused by winds — including broken windows, torn roofs and any interior damage from water falling into the home. Likewise, if strong winds blow tree limbs or entire trees onto a home, garage or shed, it’s likely covered. (If a tree falls onto a car, many comprehensive auto policies will cover the damage.)
But in many states on the East Coast, homeowners may have to pay a hefty deductible before homeowners’ insurance policies kick in for wind damage — often 1% to 5% of the total amount the home is insured for.
Serious Damage
If a home becomes so damaged that it’s uninhabitable, most standard homeowner policies will pay for a family’s living expenses — including lodging and food — while the house is being repaired.
Making A Claim
As with any insurance damage claim, my advice has always been document, document, document. Take photos and video of the damage. Keep all receipts for fans, blowers, wet vacs, sump pumps, repairs, new windows, etc. Be prepared to wait for the insurance companies to process the thousands of claims arising from Hurricane Irene. And of course, stay safe!
Should you be closing on a purchase or refinance after the storm passes and the Feds declare a Federal Disaster Area, be prepared to have a re-inspection of the property before closing. This is considered to be an Act of God and as a result the borrower will be required to pay for any re-inspection fee. These re-inspections range from $125 to $200. You will receive notice from your lender and re-disclosures prior to closing.
Here is some safety information and insurance claims in preparation for the storm surge.
When a Hurricane is Headed Your Way
Careful preparation and planning before a storm arrives will help minimize damage, loss and grief. The following is a short listing of what could be done to prepare yourself and your family during this season.
Pre-Planning:
Obtain information on flood zones and evacuation shelters. in some area, these can be found in your telephone book or online.
Plan an evacuation route to the nearest shelter or “safe” area and keep a map handy. During emergencies, shelter locations be also be announced on the radio.
Replenish emergency kits and supplies.
Secure important documents from possible damage or move to a safe location.
Develop a list of important phone numbers.
Develop a plan to secure loose objects around the house; trim branches and trees.
Ensure that your pets have collars and identification tags.
Prior to the Hurricane:
Secure all loose objects outdoors.
Secure all windows using plywood.
Fill your vehicle with fuel.
Charge all batteries (i.e. phone, lamps, flashlights, radios, etc.)
Listen to the emergency broadcasts of the storm.
Be prepared to evacuate with emergency supplies to a predetermined location.
During the Hurricane:
Stay in doors and away from windows. Keep to the center of the building on the ground level.
Listen to the emergency broadcast on the radio or television.
Turn off all electrical devices and appliances that are not needed.
Stay away from coastal waters, rivers, streams or other flooding areas.
Do not try to cross flooded areas with your vehicle.
Listen for instructions from emergency officials when the storm is over.
Splash Program (Emergency Pollution related claims)
(866) 577-5274
Splash Program (Emergency Non-Pollution related claims)
(800) 746-3835
Travelers
Personal lines:
(877) 425-2466
Commercial:
(800) 832-7839
Utica National
(800) 216-1420
Vermont Mutual (After hours claims)
(800) 445-2330
Zurich/Maryland
(800) 565-6295
If you do not currently have homeowner’s insurance please do not call today to get any, as the carriers will not write coverage until after the storm passes.
Judge Tells Lenders You Can’t Have Your MERS Cake & Eat It Too
“The sophisticated financial minds who wrought the MERS regime sought to simplify the process of repeatedly transferring mortgage loans by obviating the need and expense of recording mortgage assignments with each transfer. No doubt they failed to consider the possibility of a collapse of the residential real estate market, the ensuing flood of foreclosures and the intervention of state and federal courts.”
–Judge Melvin S. Hoffman, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge for Massachusetts, In Re. Schwartz, Aug. 22, 2011
Coming off a ruling (In re. Marron) that the MERS mortgage registration system does not run afoul of Massachusetts law, the same jurist, Bankruptcy Court Judge Melvin Hoffman, on Monday issued a ruling voiding a MERS-held mortgage which fell victim to sloppy paperwork. As Banker & Tradesman reports, the case is potentially troubling for any MERS held mortgage in default. The case is In Re. Schwartz and is embedded below.
Debtor Challenges Foreclosure Of Securitized Mortgage
During her bankruptcy proceeding, the debtor, Sima Schwartz, challenged the May 24, 2006 foreclosure of her Worcester home by Deutsche Bank. She asserted that under the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court earlier in the year, Deutsche did not own the mortgage on the property when it first started the foreclosure process.
The “lender” on her original mortgage was Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), as nominee for First NLC. Many housing advocates have criticized MERS’ role in the foreclosure crisis, with the New York Times weighing in most recently. The mortgage loan was securitized and subsequently transferred at least 3 times, ultimately winding up held by Deutsche Bank. No assignments of mortgage were recorded with the registry of deeds until a day before the foreclosure sale on May 23, 2006. That assignment was executed by Liquenda Allotey, one of the hundreds of deputized vice presidents of MERS, and an alleged “robo-signer” for Lender Processing Service (LPS) which has come under fire for document irregularities. The assignment ran to Deutsche Bank, which completed the foreclosure sale on May 24, bid its mortgage debt and purchased the property.
There was no dispute that under the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, the late-filed mortgage assignment rendered the foreclosure defective unless Deutsche could establish its ownership of the mortgage loan when the foreclosure process started. During the trial, Deutsche submitted all the various agreements documenting the securitization process including the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA), loan purchase agreement, bill of sale and custodial log.
Judge: Lenders Can’t Have Their MERS Cake And Eat It Too
Critically, as the judge noted, the PSA provided that for a MERS mortgage such as this, assignments of mortgages did not have to be prepared or delivered to the buyer of the loans. As is endemic with most securitized mortgages, the participants in the securitization did not deliver and record any assignments documenting such transfers, instead, relying on the internal MERS registration system, which is out of the public records view. Throwing this provision back in the lenders’ faces, the judge basically said “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” — rendering his ruling that the mortgage itself (as opposed to the underlying loan) was never transferred through the securitization system from entity A, B, C, to Deutsche Bank, and that MERS had always held, and never relinquished, “legal title” to the mortgage. Accordingly, the judge held, Deutsche Bank was never the owner of the mortgage in the first place, could not foreclose in its name, and its foreclosure sale was null and void.
Impact: Are Foreclosures Of MERS Mortgages Now Open To Challenge?
I’m not sure what’s going to happen with Ms. Schwartz’s home. She’s been living in it since 2006 probably mortgage/rent free! Certainly, MERS could (and should have) started a second foreclosure and done it the right way. I’m perplexed why Deutsche and MERS kept fighting this case in court. As for the broader implications, it’s still unclear as to the effect on past and current foreclosures. One this is for certain, the ruling is yet another example of the legal fallout from the deficiencies in the MERS system.
Lastly, while I don’t claim to be a mortgage securitization expert, if the mortgage was not assigned/transferred properly and if it is MERS that holds legal title, then there is a mortgage backed security investor somewhere who THINKS he owns this mortgage but, in fact, does not. Even if MERS wanted to transfer the mortgage to the relevant trust or foreclose, sell the property and transfer cash, they may not be able to for legal and tax reasons. Now multiply by a million. So how many mortgage backed securities are missing how many mortgages? Are there mortgage backed securities out there that don’t actually own ANY mortgages? If someone sells a “mortgage backed” security that doesn’t legally own the mortgages in question, hasn’t that someone committed fraud? And furthermore, how the hell do we clean this up?
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.
Handed down today is a case right from a first year law school property exam, Hurtubise v. McPherson, embedded below.
As most real estate professionals know, contracts for the sale of real estate must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged, i.e, the seller. This is a rule of law going back to English common law and is called the Statute of Frauds which can be found in the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 259, Section 1. As with most black letter law, there are a few exceptions to the general rule, and this case is a textbook example of the “detrimental reliance” exception to the Statute of Frauds.
Hand-Shake Land Swap Agreement
Here are the facts of the case. Hurtubise and McPherson owned adjoining tracts of land in the town of Templeton. Hurtubise operated a storage business on his property. He wanted to build an additional storage shed along the border between his property and McPherson’s property. Hurtubise realized that he could not meet the setback requirements of the local zoning code unless he acquired land from McPherson. Hurtubise approached McPherson, explained his need, and proposed a land trade, offering to convey to McPherson a portion of the front of his (Hurtubise’s) property in exchange for the portion of McPherson’s land at which Hurtubise intended to erect the new storage shed. McPherson agreed to the proposal and the parties shook hands.
Hurtubise proceeded with his plans for construction of the new building. He obtained a building permit and began to excavate along the border of McPherson’s lot. During the seven to eight weeks of construction, Hurtubise saw McPherson at the site. McPherson never objected to the location of the new building. Hurtubise eventually constructed a 300 x 30-foot storage shed for $39,690.
After construction, McPherson objected and accused Hurtubise of taking more land than he initially had represented. McPherson informed Hurtubise that an exorbitant payment of $250,000 would resolve the dispute which Hurtubise refused to pay. McPherson then notified the town that Hurtubise’s new building encroached on his property. The town’s building commissioner revoked Hurtubise’s building permit and ordered him to cease occupancy of the storage shed. After McPherson threatened to demolish the building, Hurtubise brought suit to enforce the oral agreement.
Exception To Written Contract Rule
As mentioned above, to be enforceable, real estate contracts for the sale of property must be in writing and signed by the seller, at minimum. As Judge Mitchell Sikora wrote in the opinion, “however an equitable qualification puts some flexibility into the joints of the Statute.” An oral agreement for the sale of land can be valid if the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and on the continuing assent of the party against whom enforcement is sought, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement. In non-legalese, this means that if you start a construction project and spend thousands of dollars upon the promise of a land deal, albeit not in writing, you may be able to enforce that promise.
Because Hurtubise just sat by idly and watched McPherson construct his shed at considerable cost without objection, the court ruled that he couldn’t then complain there wasn’t a written agreement, in an attempt to wriggle out of the land swap deal. The court then ordered Hurtubise to convey McPherson the land necessary to build the shed.
This case is one of the very few instances where a court has upheld an oral hand-shake real estate agreement. The take-away: make sure your real estate contracts are always in writing and signed!
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous real estate contract breach cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts real estate contract legal dispute.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is regarded as one of the leading real estate attorneys in Massachusetts. With over 25 years in practice, he is a four time winner of the "Top Lawyer" award by Boston Magazine, a "Super Lawyer" designation from Thompson/West, and "Best of Metrowest." For Rich's professional biography, click here. If you are interested in hiring Rich or have a legal question, email or call him at [email protected] or 508-620-5352.
Realtors, are you using the most current contingencies and language in your Offers? Do you know the most current Fannie Mae/FHA condo rules and how they will impact your condo sale? Want to know the latest on the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling and the foreclosure title mess? How can you avoid last minute crises? All these questions and more will be answered in our upcoming free webinar.
Massachusetts Summary Process Evictions: An Unlevel Playing Field For Landlords
