2011

Move That Condo! Court Orders Removal Of Encroaching Building

by Rich Vetstein on August 20, 2011

in Adverse Possession, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

triple113Adverse Possession Bites Condo Developer In The You-Know-What

The case of Brandao v. Docanto (embedded below), handed down by the Appeals Court on August 18, 2011, is a real doozy. The Court ordered a condominium developer to remove his entire building which encroached just 13 inches onto his neighbor’s property. And get this, that strip of land had been acquired by the neighbor through adverse possession (read more here) which is open and continuous use for 20 years. This is a good one in the annuls of Massachusetts property line/boundary line disputes.

Close Knit Neighbors

Mr. Brandao owns the property at 28 Dunmore Street in Roxbury. Mr. DoCanto owns the neighboring corner lot located at 16 Magazine Street. The two parcels were separated by a chain-link fence which was erected by Brandao’s predecessors sometime before 1980. The Brandaos used the entire yard up to the location of the original fence for growing vegetables and fruits, parking and working on their automobiles. They also maintained the area by cutting the grass and weeding. The judge found that the Brandaos used the area, including the strip of land adjacent to the original fence, continuously in a manner typical of any family in an urban setting for approximately 24 years, sufficient time to establish ownership by adverse possession.

DoCanto commenced construction of a two and one-half story two-unit condominium building. Brandao’s fence was deliberately pushed out and then moved, to accommodate the placement of the foundation for the new structure. After the condominiums were built, DoCanto erected a new fence, but placed it in a different location. However, the new fence and condominium structure encroached on the Brandao’s property for a total of 188 square feet. Within this 188 square foot area, the building structure encroaches increasingly for 29 feet along the boundary in a triangular shape for a total of 14 square feet. The maximum width of the building encroachment is 13.2 inches.

Everyday Outdoor Activities Establish Adverse Possession

Brandao was none too happy about the encroachment. He sued and won in the Land Court which found that he had acquired ownership of the dispute land through adverse possession. As I explain in a prior blog post, adverse possession is a legal doctrine under which a landowner can claim another’s property by using it openly, exclusively, continuously and notoriously for 20 or more years.

The appellate court upheld that ruling, and had some notable comments about adverse possession in a densely settled urban area such as Roxbury. An adverse possessor need only use the property “as the average owner would use it.” Growing a vegetable garden, mowing of the lawn and weeds, parking and working on and maneuvering cars, outdoor recreation, playing with children, and so forth was sufficient to establish adverse possession.

Forced Removal

In Massachusetts, a landowner is ordinarily entitled to the removal of a structure significantly encroaching on his land, even though the encroachment was unintentional or negligent and the cost of removal is substantial in comparison to any injury suffered by the encroacher. There is an exception where an order of removal would be, for various reasons, “oppressive and inequitable.” Somewhat surprisingly, the court found that the 13 inch encroachment was “significant.” I think this is debatable given that the value of the encroached area was, by one estimate, $420.

At the end of the day, however, DoCanto’s build-first-ask-question-later actions did him in. The court found that DoCanto’s encroachment was no accident and reckless, finding that “DoCanto and his contractors and other agents paid no attention to the open and obvious fact that the [plaintiffs’] family was using and exclusively occupying the land up to the fence.” The estimates for removal range from $120,000 to $430,000, depending on the method chosen. Well, there goes DoCanto’s profit for his condo!

Take-Aways

There are several take-aways from this case. First, developers need to investigate not only survey results but what activities are present on boundary line areas to determine whether there may be a valid claim for adverse possession. Don’t just assume that a boundary line is set in stone where it appears an encroachment is present. The prudent course is to investigate the encroachment first, before shovels hit the ground. Second, this case may make adverse possession claims easier to establish as it confirmed that normal activities –mowing, weeding, gardening, playing, parking — on land is sufficient to prevail on a claim.

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous adverse possession cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact me if you are dealing with a Massachusetts adverse possession dispute.

Docanto Case

{ 4 comments }

Top 100 ABA Legal Blog Voting Starts

by Rich Vetstein on August 18, 2011

in Blogging

The editors of the American Bar Association Journal are working on their prestigious annual list of the 100 best legal blogs and they are seeking your advice. You are welcome to vote for multiple “blawgs” so make sure to include them all. Submissions are due before September 9, 2011.

We would be honored if you voted for us! Our URL is www.massrealestatelawblog.com.

Vote here (http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit/)!

A few of our favorites are:

{ 0 comments }

Rich’s Realty Ramblings: First MERS Case Filed With Supremes, New Subdivision Built On Old Landfill, Fannie Mae Reportedly Abusing Foreclosure Power

by Rich Vetstein on August 17, 2011

in Construction Law, Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Mortgage Crisis

This is the first post in a new series I’ve been wanting to try out for awhile: Rich’s Realty Ramblings (not sold on the name yet–feel free to suggest alternatives). This series will be kind of like a weekly news wire report for those topics I find interesting but not warranting an entire blog post. So let’s go….

MERS Case Reaches U.S. Supreme Court

According to Housing Wire, a controversial case challenging the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) to foreclose on a California man was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, making it the first major MERS case to reach the nation’s highest court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Gomes v. Countrywide, Gomes’ attorney, Ehud Gersten, says the court will have to decide whether a lower court stripped his client, Jose Gomes, of due process by allowing MERS to foreclose without ensuring the registry had the noteholder’s authority to foreclose. “I believe this to be the first case in the country to take MERS to our Supreme Court,” Gersten told HousingWire.

The U.S. Supreme Court rarely takes such cases, and I’m not sure if the due process issues surrounding MERS warrant constitutional intervention, but the case caught my eye and I’ll keep a watch on it.

Old Landfill Found Under New Subdivision

Tampa homeowner Brian Dyer hired a contractor to install a pool in the backyard of his five year old home in the Oak Run Subdivision for his four children. Within hours of breaking ground, construction halted when the contractor discovered a sizable underground dump complete with tires, washing machine tubs, a lawn mower and old trash dating back to the 1970s. With a hole in his yard and a pile of garbage beside it, Dyer approached the county about the eyesore and was told they were unaware of the trash and told him he would be required to handle the problem. (Source: Agent Genius).

Yikes! Mr. Dyer has a potentially large claim against the developer and builder of his subdivision and home. What a stinking mess!

Fannie Mae Abusing Foreclosure Powers?

A Detroit Free Press investigation claims that Fannie Mae spent $27,000 on a foreclosure for a $3,000 debt, and violated its own internal rules to foreclose on struggling homeowners. Fannie Mae has been the target of Congressional ire for some time now. Homeowners across the U.S. are literally begging for loan modifications to stay in their homes in order to avoid foreclosure.

{ 0 comments }

Appeals Court Resurrects Toxic Mold Claim Against Admiral’s Hill Condominium

by Rich Vetstein on August 16, 2011

in Condominium Law, Construction Law, Insurance, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Safety

mold_houseApplication of “Discovery Rule” Enables Toxic Mold Claim To Survive Dismissal

Toxic mold is a dangerous condition that can arise in buildings with untreated water leaks and penetration. The most common form of “toxic mold” is Stachybotrys chartarum, a greenish-black mold. It can grow on material with a high cellulose and low nitrogen content, such as fiberboard, gypsum board, paper, dust, and lint. Growth occurs when there is moisture from water damage, excessive humidity, water leaks, condensation, water infiltration, or flooding. Constant moisture is required for its growth. According to the Centers for Disease Control, toxic mold causes upper respiratory tract symptoms, cough, and wheeze in otherwise healthy people; with asthma symptoms in people with asthma; and with hypersensitivity pneumonitis in individuals susceptible to that immune-mediated condition. The CDC also found limited or suggestive evidence linking indoor mold exposure and respiratory illness in otherwise healthy children.

Roof Leaks Lead To Toxic Mold

According to the August 15, 2011 case of Doherty v. Admiral’s Flagship Condominium Trust (see below), Denise Doherty owned a condominium unit at the Admiral’s Flagship Condominium in Chelsea. (If you are driving into Boston northbound on the Mystic Bridge, these are the condominium units on Admiral’s Hill under the bridge.) In 2004, a roof leak led to ceiling cracks and loosening plaster in Doherty’s unit, and she requested that repairs be made. Any repairs made were either untimely or inappropriate. In February, 2006, Doherty noticed mushrooms and water infiltration on the same threshold and notified the condominium management company. It replied that the threshold was rotted, and required replacement. The management company did a shoddy job repairing the damage.

A month later a mold remediation company found hazardous mold in unsafe levels in Doherty’s unit caused by water infiltration and chronic dampness. Following this discovery, the condominium management promised to repair the leaks, and that the mold would be removed. A mold remediation was attempted, but failed, and mold remains in the unit. In 2008, Doherty’s doctor ordered her to vacate her unit due to the presence of the mold. Although Doherty has continued to request repairs of the leaks and chronic dampness, and a full remediation of the mold, no further action has been taken. She filed suit against the condominium and its manager on February 13, 2009, claiming that due to the defendants’ failure to repair, she has suffered severe, permanent health problems, lost income, loss of her personal property, and loss of the value of her condominium unit.

Limitations Period Begins When Toxic Mold Symptoms First Arise

Doherty’s personal injury claims are governed by a 3 year statute of limitations. A statute of limitations is the time period set by law by which a person is allowed to file a lawsuit. If you sleep on your rights, you lose them.

The condominium claimed that the stopwatch for Doherty’s claims started in 2004 when the water leak occurred, and that she filed her lawsuit 2 years late. The lower court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.

The Appeals Court overturned that ruling, holding that under the “discovery rule” the statute of limitations for a toxic mold claim starts when the injured person becomes aware of the existence of toxic mold through investigation or some physical manifestation of being exposed to toxic mold, such as respiratory symptoms, asthma and the like. In Doherty’s case, she first became aware of the toxic mold when the lab results came back in March 2006 which was within the 3 year limitations period. The court reasoned:

We agree with the foregoing cases that without some indication of a hazardous contamination, the plaintiff could not have been aware that she was being exposed to toxic mold, regardless of when the leak began. Contrary to the defendants argument, it is not a certainty that all water infiltration will eventually evolve into toxic mold. To conclude otherwise would encourage, and possibly even require, a plaintiff to preemptively file suit the moment water starts to infiltrate a dwelling or other building, before any mold or mold-related injury has even occurred.

According to the judges themselves, this decision is the first Massachusetts appellate case dealing with the statute of limitations for toxic mold, so it’s quite important. The case will make it easier for toxic mold victims to sue wrongdoers in state court. The case also highlights the importance of addressing water leaks in condominiums quickly and professionally. If the condominium management had properly dealt with the roof leaks in the first place, perhaps Ms. Doherty would not have been exposed to toxic mold in the first place!

Doherty v. Admiral’s Condo Case

{ 1 comment }

Mortgage Lending Advisory: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA Conforming Loan Limits Dropping On Sept. 30th!

by Rich Vetstein on August 15, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Refinances

Fannie Mae and FHA Conforming Loan Limits Dropping.  Close by 9/30/2011 or sooner!

A guest post by David Gaffin, Senior Mortgage Lender, from Greenpark Mortgage.

David Gaffin, Greenpark Mortgage

As Congress lets the temporary increase in conforming loan limits expire October 1st, we have received word that some investors will require that all loans affected by these limits close on or before September 30, 2011. Other investors will have their own timelines and will require closings earlier, perhaps weeks earlier.

I have attached a chart below indicating the new loan limits for 1-4 family residences through 12/31/2011 for some investors. 2012 Loan limits for Fannie and Freddie have yet to be announced. For Massachusetts this reduction will impact the these areas as follows: Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket: Reduced from $729,750 to $625,500; , Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk Counties reduced from $523,750 to $465,750; Bristol county will be reduced to $426,650; Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester Counties will remain at $417,000.

Please follow the attached chart for the max loan amounts. It is indicated by county.

                                               1 Family 2 Family 3 Family 4 Family

BRISTOL MA

$426,650

$546,200

$660,200

$820,500
DUKES

MA

$625,500

$800,775

$967,950

$1,202,925
ESSEX

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
FRANKLIN

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950
HAMPDEN

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950
HAMPSHIRE

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950
MIDDLESEX

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
NANTUCKET

MA

$625,500

$800,775

$967,950

$1,202,925
NORFOLK

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
PLYMOUTH

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
SUFFOLK

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
WORCESTER

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950

You can also access other states via the website: http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=185 and click on the HERA Loan Limits at the bottom of the page.

With respect to FHA, more pain is ahead as FHA seeks to lower its market share and reduce exposure. Loan limits decreases will affect Massachusetts dramaticaly, as the chart below indicates:

Continuing HERA Median
Appropriations Limit House Year
Act of Price of Median
Limit 2011 2011 for House
(1-unit) (1-unit) Difference Area Price
MA BarnstableCounty

$462,500

$405,950

($56,550)

$353,000

2008
MA BristolCounty

$475,000

$426,650

($48,350)

$371,000

2008
MA DukesCounty

$729,750

$625,500

($104,250)

$626,000

2010
MA EssexCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA FranklinCounty

$318,750

$274,850

($43,900)

$239,000

2010
MA HampdemCounty

$318,750

$274,850

($43,900)

$239,000

2010
MA HampshireCounty

$318,750

$274,850

($43,900)

$239,000

2010
MA MiddlesexCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA NantucketCounty

$729,750

$625,500

($104,250)

$1,325,000

2009
MA NorfolkCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA PlymouthCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA SuffolkCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA WorcesterCounty

$385,000

$285,200

($99,800)

$248,000

2008

 

Worcester County will get killed! With Loan Limits dropping by almost $100,000, FHA will be effectively increasing the down payment requirements for buyers, if they wish to purchase a home over $298,000. This will have an impact on home prices. FHA is also good for buyers who have less than 740 credit scores. Fannie has price adjustments for lower Ficos and these raise the interest rates to borrowers. The towns of Milford, Westborough, Northborough, Shrewbury, Northborough, among others could be hard hit.

Bottom line, Take advantage of the low interest rates and higher loan limits now. Greenpark is currently accepting purchase loans for the higher limits until 8/25/2011, to close by 9/30/2011.

Please send me an email me, [email protected] with any questions and thank you for reading.

{ 0 comments }

SJC Rules That Housing Court May Hear Challenges To Foreclosures

by Rich Vetstein on August 12, 2011

in Foreclosure, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects

Battle Over Invalid Foreclosures May Shift To Evictions In Housing Courts

In the closely watched case of Bank of New York v. Bailey (embedded below), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on August 4, 2011 that the Housing Court may hear a homeowner’s challenge that a foreclosing lender failed to conduct a foreclosure sale in accordance with state law and under the now seminal U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision. Previous to this decision, foreclosing lenders and their attorneys were quite successful in evicting homeowners even where there were defects in the foreclosures.

A Subprime Eviction

KC Bailey obtained a mortgage in 2005, which appears to have been of the sub-prime vintage (America’s Wholesale Lender), on his home in Mattapan. Merely two years later, he defaulted, and the lender commenced foreclosure proceedings. Bailey claimed that the lender never provided him with any notice of the foreclosure, and he first learned about it when an eviction notice was duct taped to his fence. The lender started an eviction in the Boston Housing Court. Bailey defended on the basis of the alleged defective notice. The Housing Court judge ruled in favor of the lender, and the case went up to the SJC.

Ruling: Housing Court May Hear Foreclosure Challenge

The SJC first ruled, in a case of first impression, that the Housing Court had jurisdiction to consider whether the lender had properly completed the foreclosure sale and provided adequate notice to Bailey. The court noted that such a challenged was “long-standing.” Next, the Court ruled that all foreclosing lenders seeking eviction must show that it has completed the foreclosure sale in full compliance with state law. This is a change in prior practice as lenders would typically submit the foreclosure deed as evidence of good title and ownership without additional investigation.

Impact: More Difficult To Evict, But More Opportunity For Loan Mods

This decision is going to make it more difficult and expensive to evict foreclosed homeowners and get these properties off lenders’ books. On the positive side, it may give homeowners more leverage to negotiate loan modifications to enable them to stay in their homes and recover from financial distress. Evictions based on faulty foreclosures will be nearly impossible to complete and could potentially drag on for months if not years.

This decision will also have a substantial impact on the already over-burdened Housing Court system. If you have ever been to the Thursday summary process session at Boston or Worcester Housing Court, it’s akin to a refugee camp, with hundreds of cases lined up and families facing homelessness. It’s very sad. I’m sure the judges will push lenders and homeowners dealing with faulty foreclosures to resolve their differences out of court, or tell them to wait in back of the line for trial assignment.

Bank of New York v. Bailey

{ 1 comment }

FHA Stays In Condominium Game With Issuance Of Revised Lending Guidelines

by Rich Vetstein on July 5, 2011

in Condominium Law, FHA, HUD, Mortgages

Good News For First Time Condo Buyers

FHA loan programs offer low down payment mortgages which are often ideal for first time home buyers who lack cash for a 20% down payment but are otherwise strong borrowers. On June 30, 2011, FHA confirmed its commitment to financing condominiums with the issuance of revised lending guidelines (HUD Mortgagee Letter 11-22). The new FHA Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide can be downloaded here.

“Today, we institute revised guidelines that preserve FHA’s role in the condo marketplace during these difficult times while making certain we manage risk in a responsible way,” said FHA’s Acting Commissioner Robert Ryan. “This guidance formalizes and expands the policies we put in place in 2009 and lays the groundwork for a more formal rulemaking process going forward.”

Highlights Of New Guidelines

1.  Reserve Study Requirements:
New guidelines require reserve studies on all conversion (i.e., new) developments. Reserve Studies are valid for a period of 2 years.

2.  Reserve Funding
In addition to a reserve study determination, a minimum of 10% of the operating budget must be set aside as a baseline in a reserve account. Funds to cover the total cost of any item in the Reserve Study or that will require replacement within 5 years must be deposited in HOA’s reserve account. The insurance deductible must also be included in the reserve fund.

3.  Delinquent Condo Fees

On existing projects, the condominium cannot have more than a 15% delinquency rate on unpaid condo fees. This could be a problem for struggling condominiums. A waiver may be granted, however, with supporting documentation.

4. Pending Litigation

Litigation impacting the financing soundness of the condominium must be disclosed and explained to FHA. Again, this could be problematic if the condominium is involved in, for example, a lawsuit with the original developer over construction defects.

5. HO-6 Policies

Individual HO-6 insurance policies are required if the master condo insurance policy does not provide interior unit coverage (which most don’t).

6. Fidelity Bonds For Large Projects

Fidelity insurance to protect against employee dishonesty is required for projects over 20 units.

7. New Construction Pre-Sale
New Construction pre-sale requirements remain at 30%, although only for one year after the first closing. After the first year, it increases to 50% for the development.

8.  Maximum Commercial Concentration
Remains at 25%, however, new guidance allows for possible waiver request up to 35% of the development.

9. 10% Investor Concentration
No longer includes sponsor unsold units or units required to be rented by State or Municipality, ie; rent stabilized/rent controlled.

 

{ 1 comment }

Oh Fudge! Audit Shows Large Percentage Of Essex County Mortgage Assignments Are “Invalid”

by Rich Vetstein on June 29, 2011

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

Ironically on the same day Bank of American is about to sign a historic $8.5 Billion settlement agreement over bad mortgages, somebody finally went through a registry of deeds to look at the effect of the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision and the validity of mortgage assignments in Massachusetts. This just came in off the Housing Wire and is scorching through the real estate newswires.

Audit Shows 75% of Mortgage Assignment Are Invalid In Mass. County

According to an audit performed by McDonnell Property Analytics, in the Salem, Mass. Registry of Deeds, 75% of mortgage assignments are “invalid.” About 27% of invalid assignments are fraudulent, McDonnell said, while 35% are robo-signed and 10% violate the Massachusetts Mortgage Fraud Statute.

McDonnell said it could only determine the financial institution that owned the mortgage in 60% of the cases reviewed. There are 683 missing assignments for the 287 traced mortgages, representing about $180,000 in lost recording fees.

“What this means is that the degradation in standards of commerce by which the banks originated, sold and securitized these mortgages are so fatally flawed that the institutions, including many pension funds, that purchased these mortgages don’t actually own them,” according to analysts at McDonnell. “The assignments of mortgage were never prepared, executed and delivered to them in the normal course of business at the time of the transaction.”

John O’Brien, register of deeds for Essex County in the northeastern corner of Massachusetts, urged state attorneys general for a third time to cease settlement talks with the nation’s largest servicers. In May, O’Brien sent a letter to Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller for this same purpose.

“My registry is a crime scene as evidenced by this forensic examination,” said O’Brien. “This evidence has made it clear to me that the only way we can ever determine the total economic loss and the amount damage done to the taxpayers is by conducting a full forensic audit of all registry of deeds in Massachusetts.”

Is This Audit Flawed Though?

Now, a few observations about this “audit.”

First, McDonnell Property Analytics is a company engaged in the business of stopping or delaying foreclosures and performing related audits. The company makes money when consumers hire them to perform audits of the mortgage paperwork when they are facing foreclosure. The owner of the company is on a crusade against the mortgage industry to expose the paperwork and robo-signing mess, not that that’s a bad thing. But there’s some built in bias here on this purported audit.

Second, there’s no indication of the methodology to determine whether a mortgage assignment is “invalid” or “fraudulent.” What does that mean exactly? What are the audit’s definitions of “invalid” and “fraudulent.” Same for “robo-signed.” Who is determined to be a “robo-signer,” and how is that determination made? I’d like to see the underlying assumptions here.

Based on what I’ve read so far on this “audit,” I’m not sure it would hold up in a court of law. The 75% invalid rate seems very high and questionable, in my opinion. But certainly, these are good questions to ask and analyze and bring to the forefront. It’s clear that Essex Registrar of Deeds John O’Brien wants to recoup all the millions in recording fees he’s lost to the securitization industry and MERS, and he’s the most outspoken of all the registrars of deeds on this problem. (Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. O’Brien has higher political aspirations?).

Well, this problem is big enough that BofA just threw $8.5 Billion to make it go away, and bank stocks are still anemic. So we’ll see how this ultimately plays out.

{ 4 comments }

The Jedi Master Mortgage Discharge Tracker

by Rich Vetstein on June 27, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Title Defects, Title Insurance

yodaDon’t Let An Undischarged Mortgage Ruin Your Closing

Real estate attorneys are often confronted with difficult and complex title defects which need to be cured. With the refinancing boom of the last 10 years, sloppy, high-volume closing attorneys occasionally failed to obtain discharges of mortgage they were paying off at closing. Likewise, home equity closings at local bank branches were also notorious for not tracking down and recording mortgage discharges.

These undischarged mortgages and “missing” discharges from years ago rear their ugly heads when the homeowner goes to sell his property and a full 50 year title examination is undertaken by a competent closing attorney. Some of these missing discharges are from old banks and financial institutions which have gone bankruptcy, are now in FDIC receivership, or were merged with other banks several times. Some are with private lenders who are no where to be found. Of course, title must be cleared prior to closing or there is no closing!

This is when even the most experienced real estate closing attorney has to call in the cavalry. And that person is someone like Kurt Stuckel, Esq.

I like to call Kurt the Jedi Master Discharge Tracker. Operating out of a small office in little Pepperell, Mass., Attorney Stuckel handles and solves thousands of title requests every year for real estate attorneys and title companies throughout the Commonwealth. He’s handled several thorny issues for me in recent months – even one where I thought “there’s no way he can get this one” from the FDIC–and low and behold, he did. His fees are reasonable, and he makes the closing attorney look good in front of their clients.

If you are in need of excellent title curative services, please contact Kurt Stuckel, Esq. at 978.443.5241 or email at [email protected]. And tell him I sent you!

{ 2 comments }

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Title Insurance Kickback Class Action Case

by Rich Vetstein on June 25, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, RESPA, Title Insurance

L to R, bottom: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Ginsberg; top: Sonya Sotomayor, Steven Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elana Kagan

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Edwards v. First American Title
In a case closely watched by the title insurance and real estate settlement services industry, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a class action which will decide whether consumers can sue under the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) over a title insurance referral arrangement that allegedly violated RESPA’s anti-kickback provisions. The case’s outcome could shield title insurers, banks and other lenders from litigation under RESPA and a wide range of federal and state laws. If First American wins this case, we could see title insurance companies in Mass. taking a much more active role in the operations of their favorite and most profitable agents.

The case is Edwards v. First American Title Co. For more coverage of the case, read the SCOTUS Blog summary here.

No Kickbacks

Class action attorneys file hundreds of cases each year on behalf of borrowers alleging violations of RESPA, which prohibits “any fee, kickback or thing of value,” in exchange for a business referral. RESPA also forbids that a “portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service” be paid for services that are not actually rendered to the customer. If a violation of the statute is proven, a court can award a plaintiff treble damages, or triple the amount, for any charge paid.

In a lawsuit filed in 2007, Denise Edwards claimed her title insurer, Tower City Title Agency LLC of Highland Heights, Ohio, entered into a “captive insurance agreement” with First American Title that was illegal under RESPA. The lawsuit said that because First American paid $2 million for a 17.5% minority interest in Tower City in 1998, it received the majority of the local agent’s referral business which violated RESPA. The suit sought class action status on behalf of all consumers who purchased title insurance through a title agency that was subject to an exclusive referral agreement with First American, and damages of up to $150 million.

The case went up to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which sided with Edwards that “the damages provision in RESPA gives rise to a statutory cause of action whether or not an overcharge occurred.”

Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court will review the constitutional issue of whether consumers must prove they were actually injured under RESPA and other truth in lending laws. A favorable ruling for First American could mean a significant dent in costly class action suits under RESPA and TILA. Oral argument is expected in the Fall term, in October.

Massachusetts Impact: Cozier Agent Relationships?

Beyond curtailing or expanding consumers’ ability to bring all sorts of claims under RESPA and Truth in Lending (TILA), a favorable result for First American could enable title companies to get into much cozier relationships with attorney agents in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is a so-called attorney agency state, where attorneys issue title insurance policies. Title insurance companies in Massachusetts cannot (yet) legally invest in or own law firms (although this rule is being challenged nationally). So we don’t have a “captive insurance agreements” or the like. Certainly, some attorney agents prefer to give their business to one or two particular title insurance companies, but to my knowledge, there’s no formal agreement among insurers and agents here in Mass.

If First American wins this case, we could see title insurance companies in Mass. considering captive insurance agreements and taking a much more active role in the operations of their favorite and most profitable agents. We will see….

{ 1 comment }

Is “Buyer Beware” Alive and Well? An Overview of Massachusetts Real Estate Disclosure Law

by Rich Vetstein on June 21, 2011

in Condominium Law, Construction Law, Disclosures, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Offer To Purchase, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Realtors, Safety

iStock_000003014021XSmal.jpgCaveat Emptor: “Let The Buyer Beware”

Caveat Emptor is an old common law rule which means “Let the Buyer Beware.” In plain English, it means that home buyers are on their own when it comes to the condition of the property. If there is a defect of any kind, it becomes the buyer’s problem, not the seller’s.

Most home buyers are unaware that in Massachusetts, with a few exceptions, the rule of Buyer Beware is still alive and well. That is why in the vast majority of transactions, buyers choose to have the property inspected by a licensed home inspector. And it’s also why there is a contingency in the offer or purchase and sale agreement giving the buyer the right to opt out of the agreement if there are serious issues.

But what happens if the home inspector misses a broken A/C unit, or the sellers concealed that the basement flooded, or the Realtor didn’t tell the buyers there was a Level 3 sex offender next door? These are all thorny disclosure issues.

Private Sellers: No Duty to Disclose

A private seller has no legal duty in Massachusetts to disclose anything about the property (except for the presence of lead paint). Yes, you read that correctly. He doesn’t have to say boo. Will that assist the buyer in selecting the home for purchase? Maybe not. But if the basement floods, the seller does not have to say anything about it.

A seller, however, cannot affirmative misrepresent a material fact about the property. That is, if the seller is asked a direct question, such as “has the basement ever flooded?” and he answers “never” when it has, he has lied and can be held liable for that.

Most agents will insist that Sellers fill out a Statement of Property Condition (see below) which will fully disclose just about every conceivable condition of the premises. However, the standard form does contain small print language purporting to limit the agent and seller from disclosure liability.

Real Estate Agents: Heightened Duty

Under Massachusetts consumer protection regulations governing real estate brokers, a broker must disclose to a buyer “any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer or prospective buyer not to enter into the transaction.” This is somewhat of a subjective standard; what may matter to one buyer may not matter to another. If a broker is asked a direct question about the property, she must answer truthfully, accurately, and completely to the best of her knowledge. Further, a broker cannot actively avoid discovering the details of a suspected problem or tell half-truths. This is why most Realtors err on the side of full disclosure, as suggested in Bill Gassett’s blog.

As for that Level 3 sex offender living next door, I would advise the listing agent to disclose that fact. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that off-site physical conditions may require disclosure if the conditions are unknown and not readily observable by the buyer and if the existence of those conditions is of sufficient materiality to affect the habitability, use, or enjoyment of the property and, therefore, render the property substantially less desirable or valuable to the objectively reasonable buyer. I think a dangerous sex offender would be something a buyer would want to know about, wouldn’t you?

Home Inspectors

In 1999, Massachusetts joined a growing number of states that require home inspectors to be licensed. There is now a state Board of Registration of Home Inspectors. Home inspectors are now required to carry at least $250,000 of errors and omissions insurance. The board is empowered to suspend licensed home inspectors for violations of the statute or regulations and to impose civil penalties on persons purporting to conduct a home inspection without the required license.

A home inspector is one of the most important referrals your Realtor will give you. Most agents know which inspectors are great and which are terrible. If you are the unfortunate victim of an incompetent home inspectors, they can be sued civilly for breach of contract or negligence.

Massachusetts Sellers Disclosure//

{ 8 comments }

The Massachusetts Land Court: One Stop Shopping For All Your Real Estate Needs

by Rich Vetstein on June 12, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Permitting/Zoning, Real Estate Litigation, Real Estate Taxes, Title Defects, Zoning

220px-OldSuffolkCoCtThe Real Estate Specialty Court

Established in 1898 and still staffed with only a handful of judges, the Massachusetts Land Court is the smallest of all the Massachusetts trial courts. But for real estate practitioners, it is the most important court in the Commonwealth.

The Land Court is known for its real estate expertise, and is the starting place for almost all foreclosures. Its judges, most of whom were practicing real estate attorneys, are widely regarded as experts in the intricacies of Massachusetts real estate law. Indeed, the diminutive Land Court has recently been at the forefront of national foreclosure law with Judge Keith Long’s seminal decision in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez which made national front page news for several days.

Registered Land

The Land Court was originally established to oversee the Massachusetts land registration system. Approximately 15-20% of all property in Massachusetts is registered land. Non-registered land is referred to as recorded land.

The purpose of the registered land system — modeled after the Australian Torrens system — is to make land titles as clear and defect-free as possible. To register land, property owners have to go through a fairly rigorous process where a land court title examiner searches and certifies title and a formal plan of the land is approved. All defects and title issues are fully vetted and resolved, if possible, and upon registration, the land is deemed free of defects except noted by the examiner, including claims of adverse possession.

Registered land is freely transferable, and there is no discernible difference in examining title to registered land, other than recording which involves a few more steps than non-registered land.

Foreclosures

The Land Court is widely known as the starting point for the vast majority of foreclosures in Massachusetts. Although Massachusetts is considered a “non-judicial” foreclosure state — that is, where a mortgage holder does not need a court order to foreclosure — the state has held onto the U.S. Soldier’s and Sailor’s Civil Relief Act which gives military members protections against foreclosure. In Massachusetts, mortgage holders bring a “Soldier’s and Sailor’s Act” proceeding in the Land Court to ensure that the property owner is not an active military member. Once the Land Court issues a judgment, the foreclosure can move forward. A Soldier’s and Sailor’s proceeding is not the forum in which to challenge a foreclosure. A homeowner needs to file a separate lawsuit in Superior Court or Land Court to do so.

Quiet Title, Partition and Title Disputes

In the last 20 years, lawmakers have widely expanded the Land Court’s jurisdiction to hear more types of cases. Today, the Land Court regularly hears cases involving zoning and subdivision appeals, quiet title and actions to try title, disputes involving mortgage priorities, tax takings, adverse possession, real estate contract disputes, petitions to partition, and more. I do most of my litigation work in the Land Court’s civil session.

Strategically, certain cases are better off in the Land Court and vice-versa. An important distinction with Land Court is that there are no jury trials. Thus, if you want a jury trial, the case should be filed in Superior Court, not Land Court. For cases which are based on the interpretation of contractual language or complex real estate legal issues, Land Court is probably a good choice. For cases which have an “emotional” component and less complex, a Superior Court jury session is probably the better choice.

New Permitting Session

Most recently, in 2007, the Legislature created a special Land Court permitting session to hear zoning and subdivision appeals for larger projects involving over 25 units or over 25,000 square feet of gross floor area. With the goal to expedite zoning disputes which have roadblocked development, cases in the new session will be assigned to a single judge for the life of the case and will be assigned one of three expedited tracks. For the first time, these tracks provide deadlines for both getting to trial (ranging from six to 12 months) and for receiving a decision after trial or summary judgment (ranging from two months to four months).

Land Court decisions aren’t widely available, but recent rulings can be found here.

If you have a complicated real estate dispute, your attorney should always seriously consider bringing the claim in the Land Court where the judge will understand the issues and keep tight control over the case.

___________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Land Court Attorney who has litigated numerous cases in the Massachusetts Land Court. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 5 comments }

The Anatomy of a Massachusetts Quitclaim Deed

by Rich Vetstein on June 6, 2011

in Closings, Condominium Law, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects

images-10The deed is the cornerstone of property ownership in Massachusetts and throughout the country. In Massachusetts, there are three types of deeds: a quitclaim deed, a warranty deed, and a release deed. By far the most common deed used in Massachusetts is the quitclaim deed (scroll down for example below), and I’ll focus on that in this post.

Quitclaim Deed Covenants

The quitclaim deed is by far the most common and standard form of deed for Massachusetts residential real estate conveyances. Quitclaim deeds in Massachusetts are similar to “special warranty deeds” in other states. A quitclaim deed carries with it statutory quitclaim covenants by the seller as provided in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 17: “The grantor, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and successors, covenants with the grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns, that the granted premises are free from all encumbrances made by the grantor, and that he will, and his heirs, executors, administrators and successors shall, warrant and defend the same to the grantee and his heirs, successors and assigns forever against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through or under the grantor, but against none other”.

Taking Title

How would you like to take title? This is an important question that buyers must consider. For single individuals, there really is no choice. You take title individually. For married couples, there are three choices: (1) tenancy by the entirety, (2) joint tenants with rights of survivorship, or (3) tenants in common.

Tenancy by the Entirety

This is often the best choice for married couples, and only husband and wife can benefit from this type of ownership. In a tenancy by the entirety form of ownership, 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. In the example, below you can see how the Obamas take title as tenants by the entirety.

Joint Tenants

Like tenants by the entirety, a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship provide that the surviving spouse or joint tenant automatically succeeds to ownership, by-passing probate. You don’t have to be married to create a joint tenancy. These are common when siblings share property or as between elderly parents and their children. Unlike a tenancy by the entirety, joint tenants can “partition” or split ownership of the property through a court process.

Tenants in Common

The least used type of ownership, in a tenancy in common, there is no right of survivorship. So when a tenant in common passes, their interest goes to their surviving heirs and the property must be probated for further sale or mortgage. Most folks want to avoid probate like the plague. Like a joint tenancy, a tenancy in common can be split or “partitioned” by court order.

Purchase Price

All deeds must recite the consideration or purchase price paid. So if you are looking to hide the amount you paid for your home, forget about it. The purchase price is also used to calculate deed/transfer taxes due the seller which is $4.56 per $1,000. For more info about deed/transfer taxes read I Have To Pay Tax On Selling My Home?!

Legal Description

Every deed must adequately describe the property conveyed. In the diagram below, you can see the formal legal description called a “metes and bounds” description. This will often reference a plan of the land recorded with the registry of deeds or reference markers on the property such as stone walls, surveyor points, etc. The deed may also recite easements, restrictions, covenants or takings on the property. It will also recite the last prior deed to track ownership.

Drafting, Fees, Notaries, Etc.

In Massachusetts, local practice is for the seller’s attorney to draft the deed. The registry of deeds charges a fee of $125 to record the deed which the buyer pays. All deeds must be notarized by a notary public who must verify the sellers’ identification through a state issued driver’s license or acceptable form of identification. The notary must also confirm that the sellers are signing the deed voluntarily by their own free act and will. Once the closing is finished, the closing attorney will courier the deed to the registry of deeds, perform a final title run-down, and record the deed, mortgage and other documents. The sale is then official!

{ 6 comments }

Massachusetts Tornado Disaster: Hope For The Best, Plan For The Worst In Your Purchase and Sale Agreement

by Rich Vetstein on June 2, 2011

in Closings, Insurance, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Safety

What happens if the property you have under agreement is wiped out by a tornado, burns down or is otherwise subject to a casualty?

Yesterday’s horrific tornadoes — which leveled parts of Springfield and Central Massachusetts — demonstrate the power and fury of Mother Nature and how little control we have over natural disasters. Our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by the tornadoes….

The tornadoes were also a stark reminder to me that an extremely important part of my job as a real estate attorney is disaster planning. Although most buyers and Realtors don’t like to think pessimistically (and neither do I), we always have to plan ahead for the worst case scenario.

Which bring us to the topic of this post. What happens if the property you have under agreement is wiped out by a tornado, burns down or is otherwise subject to a casualty?

The Standard Form Casualty & Insurance Provisions

Let’s start with the basic concept that the buyer does not own the property until the closing occurs, money is exchanged and the deed/mortgage is recorded with the registry of deeds. The purchase and sale agreement is there to govern the parties’ relationship and the property from the time the offer is signed until the closing. The seller retains ownership and control over the property during this period of “under agreement.”

Seller Must Keep Property Insured

The standard form Massachusetts purchase and sale agreement contains two important provisions dealing with homeowner’s insurance and casualty. First, the standard form provides that the seller must keep the existing homeowner’s insurance coverage in place. A good buyer’s attorney will insert language that the “risk of loss” remains with the seller until the transaction closes, to ensure that if a tornado levels the home, that loss is the seller’s responsibility.

Opt Out/Election

Second, the standard form spells out what happens if there is a casualty. If the house is deemed a causualty loss, the buyer has the option of terminating the agreement and receiving his deposit monies back. However, the buyer has the option of proceeding with the transaction and can require the Seller to assign over to the buyer all of the insurance monies available. Depending on the amount of coverage available and the cost to re-built, this may not be a bad situation, but it’s the buyer’s call.

As a “belt and suspenders” measure, I also add the following provision to my purchase and sale rider to ensure that the buyer is protected in case of a disaster:

Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, in the event that the dwelling and/or other improvements to the Premises are destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or other casualty prior to the delivery of the deed, the cost to repair which exceeds $10,000.00, BUYER may, at BUYER’S option, terminate this Agreement by written notice to SELLER, whereupon all deposits made hereunder shall be forthwith refunded, all obligations of the parties hereto shall cease, and this Agreement shall become null and void without further recourse to the parties hereto.

Although natural disasters are rare, a certain amount of disaster planning must be done for every Massachusetts real estate transaction. Think of a real estate attorney as part of your insurance policy to protect you in a worst case scenario.

{ 1 comment }

Wetlands, Swamps and Buffer Zones: A Primer on Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Law

by Rich Vetstein on May 20, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Septic/Title V, Wetlands

Interdunal Freshwater Wetland - Sandy Neck, Barnstable, MA_resizeOverview of Wetlands Regulations

Massachusetts has one of the most restrictive wetlands and environmental codes in the U.S. Simply put you cannot do anything — not clear, cut, fill, dump (not even leaves, grass clippings or dirt), alter, grade, landscape or build upon — any wetland resource area without a permit from your local town Conservation Commission.

The state Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act impose stringent restrictions and oversight of real estate development in and near coastal wetlands areas, such as salt marshes, dunes, beaches, and banks, and inland wetlands areas, such as swamps, marshes, rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes. Many homeowners are often surprised to learn their property contains or is near protected wetlands or is within a restricted buffer zone which will impact their ability to construct an addition, deck, pool, driveway, or cut trees.

Check With the Local Conservation Agent First

A buyer and their Realtor should always research whether there are wetlands on or near the property. First, walk the property — the whole thing. I’m shocked at the number of times agents don’t do this. Next, check the state Geographic Information (Mass GIS) maps online which shows most wetland areas. Next, call over to the local Conservation Agent and pull out the local wetlands maps. The conservation agent should be able to answer most questions and will know whether there are conservation restrictions on the property.

Wetlands Areas & Buffer Zones

The state Wetlands Protection Act and local Wetlands Bylaws include a number of different types of wetlands, and wetland-related areas called “Resource Areas.” These include rivers and streams (“perennial” if they run year round, and “intermittent” if they dry up seasonally); lakes and ponds; the vegetated wet areas bordering rivers, streams, lakes or ponds (“bordering vegetated wetlands”); the 100-year floodplain along rivers and streams; and isolated areas that flood seasonally, such as vernal pools. The determination of wetlands is a science and very complicated.

The first 200 feet from the edge of a perennial stream are regulated as “riverfront area.” The first 100 feet from a vegetated wetland or stream bank are regulated as “buffer zone.” Some towns have even more stringent by-laws and buffer zones, so always check with your town’s conservation commission.

Any work performed within these resource areas and the 200 or 100 foot buffer zones are strictly regulated, and a permit (called an Order of Conditions) must be obtained by the local Conservation Commission before any work starts. The Conservation Commission may decide not to allow the project. Or it may allow it, with a myriad of conditions to protect the wetlands, including hay bales, silt fencing, wetlands replication areas, and other performance standards. Furthermore, disgruntled abutters may appeal the issuance of a conservation permit, so it’s a very good idea to get your neighbors on board before you appear before the conservation commission. It’s also a good idea to hire an experienced Massachusetts wetlands attorney to guide you through the process.

Aquifer Protection

Lastly, many Massachusetts towns rely on municipal wells as their public water supply. In response to threats and actual contamination of drinking water wells, towns have enacted aquifer protection districts. These areas are usually depicted as “overlays” on more customary zoning districts. The use of septic systems, underground fuel oil storage tanks, and other potential contaminants is often closely regulated in aquifer protection districts. Because of the costs of remediating contaminated public wells and locating alternative sources of potable water, state and local governments are taking other measures, such as restricting the size and use of septic systems to protect underground water resources.

{ 1 comment }

Exaction, Extortion or Illegal? Mandatory Dedication of Open Space Parcel Held Unlawful

by Rich Vetstein on May 16, 2011

in Construction Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Permitting/Zoning, Zoning

Score One For Property Rights Advocates

Massachusetts has the well-deserved reputation of being one of the most challenging states to permit a new housing development due to its myriad of rules, regulations and zoning by-laws. Real estate developers seeking to build a new subdivision typically go through an arduous permitting process before the local Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals and other town boards.

Open Space Set-Asides

In what has become very much en vogue and required in the last decade are towns requiring that the developer dedicate or deed some of its developable land for open space and recreational purposes. In the recent case of Collings v. Stow Planning Board(embedded below), the Appeals Court ruled that the planning board went too far in requiring that the developer set aside almost 6 acres of a 5 lot subdivision for open space and “environmentally significant areas with views.”

Now usually, the developers don’t like to sue town planning boards over these type of exactions or “give and takes” as they want to get their projects approved and “play ball” with the towns. Apparently, the Collings family stood their ground in this case and won a decent victory for other developers who are less inclined to sue town boards.

Ruling: Open Space Requirements Must Be Tied to Legitimate Subdivision Concerns

Generally, a planning board condition requiring the dedication of open space which in effect reasonably limits the number of buildable lots, imposed out of safety concerns arising from the length of the street, would not be illegal. The Appeals Court found that the Stow planning board did not limit itself to a reasonable open space requirement but went much farther and required dedication of open space for public use, including the actual transfer of that open space to the town or a land trust. The court ruled that the exactions also provided no additional benefit above and beyond the open space requirement that relate to the safety concerns that are the subject of the subdivision law and the street length requirements. “Although a planning board’s authority under the subdivision control law certainly encompasses, in appropriate circumstances, requiring open space, it does not extend to requiring the transfer of that open space to the public for reasons unrelated to adequate access and safety of the subdivision without providing just compensation,” the Court held.

This case is a wake up call to town planning boards who may be a bit power-hungry.

Collings v. Planning Board of Stow//

___________________________________

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

{ 2 comments }

Buyer & Seller Closing Checklist: What You Need To Bring To Closing

by Rich Vetstein on May 14, 2011

in Closings, Condominium Law, Insurance, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements

images-8Buyer’s Closing Checklist

The day has finally come and it’s time to close on the purchase of your property. You will need to bring the following to the closing:

  • Funds For Closing. If you need to bring cash to the closing, you must bring to closing a bank or certified check PAYABLE TO YOURSELF for the balance of the figure shown on line 303 on your HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Cash From Buyers. This is for fraud prevention, and you’ll endorse the check over to the closing attorney at the closing. The closing attorney should provide you with this number at least 24-48 hours prior to closing. Accordingly, if you need to move funds around from investments accounts, etc., do so well in advance of the closing, and be prepared to make a bank run to obtain that bank/certified check!
  • Homeowner’s Insurance Binder. At closing, you need a homeowner’s insurance binder showing the first year premium paid. If you are purchasing a condominium unit, you will need to provide us with the Master Insurance Binder, and depending on the type of loan you use, you may need an HO-6 policy covering the interior of your unit. The closing attorney will typically get an insurance binder ordered ahead of time, but this should be on your “to-do” list.
  • Your state issued driver’s license with picture or other picture identification. Some lenders now require a second form of i.d. Your closing attorney will advise you of this.
  • If a sale of your present home is required by your new lender, you must bring the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and a copy of the Deed from that transaction.
  • Good Faith Estimate. You should bring the Good Faith Estimate of closings costs that your lender originally provided to you during the loan application process. That way, you can ensure that the final closing costs match up to those originally quoted to you.
  • Draft HUD-1 Settlement Statement. You should have received a preliminary HUD-1 Settlement Statement from the closing attorney’s office. Due to lender delays, it is not uncommon to receive this the night before or the morning of closing, although this is obviously not ideal. Compare the prelim HUD to the HUD you are signing at the closing table.
  • Your Smile. Yes, bring your smile. It’s a happy day, and despite all the tumult and stress you are finally purchasing your home!

Seller’s Closing Checklist

Sellers will need to bring the following to the closing:

  • Massachusetts or state issued driver’s license
  • Keys to home and alarm codes/information
  • Smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector certifications from local fire department. Your Realtor should assist you with this.
  • Signed Deed from you to the buyers. Your attorney should have drafted the Deed.
  • Title V Inspection Report for septic system
  • Evidence of repairs (if applicable)
  • Final water/sewer bill and reading (paid) and final oil bill and statement from oil company as to amount remaining in tank. You will need to make the request at least 2 weeks prior to closing.
  • Copy of last paid real estate tax bill.
  • 6D certificate for condominium unit showing that condo fees are paid up.
  • It’s also a nice gesture to give the new buyers the name of your landscaper, septic company, private trash hauler, handyman, etc. I’m sure your workmen will appreciate it also.

Before you close, don’t forget to:

  • Fill out change of address forms
  • Notify utility companies of move out
  • Discontinue phone service and cable
  • Leave all appliance warranties and instructions in the house (these are usually left in a kitchen drawer so they will be easily found by the new owners)
  • Notify insurance agent of closing date in order to cancel present policy
  • If you are purchasing a new home at the same time, make sure you get a copy of the fully signed HUD-1 Settlement Statement

_______________________________________________

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

{ 2 comments }

Dealing With Dysfunctional Massachusetts Condominium Trustees & Homeowner Associations

by Rich Vetstein on May 10, 2011

in Condominium Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

images-12I’ve been getting a fair amount of calls these days regarding what I like to term dysfunctional condominium management. Usually these are smaller, self-managed condominiums, converted multi-family homes, etc. Sometimes, however, the problem of dysfunctional condominium management can plague larger condominiums.

As I often tell clients, condominiums often bring out the worst in people. Professionalism and respect get thrown out the door, and childish behavior rules.

The problems can range from poor to no financial management, unpaid monthly condominium fees, problems with the transition from the original developer to the association of unit owners, power hungry condo trustees, special assessments, and disputes over costly repairs and capital improvements. Here’s some advice for would-be condominium buyers and condo unit owners to prevent and deal with dysfunctional condominium management problems.

Dealing With A Dysfunctional Condominium Board of Trustees or Association

A. Financial Mismanagement

A condominium is supposed to run like a democracy with trustees being elected by the majority of unit owners, and subject to being voted out of office when they do a poor job. The procedures for elections and removal should be set forth in the condominium declaration of trust/by-laws. In the case of financial mismanagement, unit owners often may have difficulty enforcing the internal governance rules. At minimum, disgruntled unit owners should call a special meeting and attempt to removal or vote out trustees who are causing problems. If the internal governance doesn’t work, unit owners may seek legal action for “breach of fiduciary duty” against the trustees in the Superior Court. In egregious cases, the court can grant preliminary injunctions and other remedies to protect the unit owners from financial harm.

B. Unpaid Condominium Fees

With the down economy, unpaid condo fees have become a real problem, especially for smaller condos who rely on the monthly income to pay common area expenses. Fortunately, we have a strong Massachusetts condominium lien law with some teeth, called the “Super Lien Law.” Condominium associations can file a lien for unpaid condo fees against the delinquent owner, and the first 6 months of unpaid fees will have “super-priority” status over and above the mortgage(s) on the unit. The association can then foreclose on the lien and sell the unit at auction. Attorneys’ fees and collection costs can also be pursued. The condominium may even require that a unit owner’s tenant pay the association rent to pay down the unpaid fees. These are a very valuable enforcement mechanisms to ensure that condominiums get their condo fees paid. Often the mortgage lender will pay the condo fees on behalf of the borrower to avoid the super-priority lien.

C. Transition Issues

For new construction condominiums, the developer desires to have control over the condo management during the majority of the sell out process. This, however, can create conflicts with unit owners who have bought units. Typically, the condo documents will give the developer control over the association until 75% of the units are sold out or 3 years after the master deed is recorded, whichever is earlier. But what if the developer isn’t managing the finances properly or isn’t doing much of anything? Often the only viable remedy in this type of situation is a Superior Court lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty against the developer-trustees.

Questions To Ask Before You Buy Into A Dysfunctional Condominium

  1. What are the condominium by-laws, rules & regulations? You or your attorney must read these condominium documents and make it a condition of your offer. Condominium by-laws and rules are supposed to provide a structure for good decision making. Make sure you carefully review the rules and regulations before buying.
  2. What is the monthly condominium fee and what does it pay for? The monthly condominium fee can range quite dramatically from condominium to condominium. The fee is a by-product of the number of units, the annual expenses to maintain the common area, whether the condo is professionally managed or self-managed, the age and condition of the project, and other variables such as litigation. For budgeting and financing you need to know the monthly fee and exactly what you are getting for it.
  3. How much money is in the capital reserve account and how much is funded annually? The capital reserve fund is like an insurance policy for the inevitable capital repairs every building requires. As a general rule, the fund should contain at least 10% of the annual revenue budget, and in the case of older projects, even more. If the capital reserve account is poorly funded, there is a higher risk of a special assessment.  Get a copy of the last 2 years budget, the current reserve account funding level and any capital reserve study.
  4. Are there any contemplated or pending special assessments? Special assessments are one time fees for capital improvements payable by every unit owner. Some special assessments can run in the thousands, others like the Boston Harbor Towers $75 Million renovation project, in the millions. You need to be aware if you are buying a special assessment along with your unit.  It’s a good idea to ask for the last 2 years of condominium meeting minutes to check what’s been going on with the condomininium.
  5. Is there a professional management company or is the association self-managed? Usually, a professional management company, while an added cost, can add great value to a condominium with well run governance and management of common areas. Self-managed condos tend to have a higher incidence of dysfunction.
  6. Is the condominium involved in any pending legal actions? Legal disputes between owners, with developers or with the association can signal trouble and a poorly run organization. Ask whether there are any pending lawsuits.
  7. How many units are owner occupied? A large percentage of renters can create unwanted noise and neighbor issues, and result in a higher incidence of dysfunction. It can also raise re-sale and financing  issues with the new Fannie Mae and FHA condominium regulations which limit owner-occupancy rates.
  8. What is the condominium fee delinquency rate? Again, a signal of financial trouble. Plus lending guidelines want to see the rate at 15% or less.

___________________________________

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

{ 13 comments }

Ibanez Aftermath: SJC Hears Arguments In Important Faulty Foreclosure Transfer Case

by Rich Vetstein on May 2, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects

Update (10/18/11): The Court has issued its opinion, affirming the Land Court’s dismissal. For a full analysis, click here.

Update (9/10/11): The Court has suspended its rule for the issuance of the final opinion within 130 days of oral argument. Hopefully, the decision will come down soon.

_______________________________________

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments today in the case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez on whether a home buyer can rightfully own a property if the bank that sold it to him didn’t have the right to foreclose on the original owner, after the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez landmark ruling in January. This case, which national legal experts are watching closely, may determine the rights of potentially thousands of innocent purchasers who bought property at foreclosure sales that have been rendered invalid after the Ibanez ruling.

Land Court Ruling

The case started in the Land Court where Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) ruled that the buyer of property out of an invalid foreclosure has no right to bring a “try title” action to establish his ownership rights because he never had good title in the first place. Judge Long’s ruling can be read here.

“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.

Whose Side Are They On Anyways?

Given the importance of the case, the SJC accepted it on direct appellate review. The oral arguments can be viewed here.

The positions taken by the case participants were curious to say the least. While the mortgage lobby argued in favor of the homeowner’s right to clear his title, the state Attorney General’s office argued against that position. Doesn’t the Commonwealth have a vested interest in assisting the thousands of innocent home buyers who have been impacted by the sloppiness of the mortgage and foreclosure industry? Maybe Attorney General Coakley didn’t want to give the impression that she was favoring the mortgage industry? But she’s short-sighted if she doesn’t realize that Ibanez title problems have hurt a lot of innocent folks. These people have transformed foreclosed properties from blighted eyesores into nice homes.

Tough Options

The AG feels that existing remedies are sufficient to assist home buyers clear Ibanez related title problems. From the front line trenches, I can tell you, they are often not. The remedies are: (1) sue the foreclosing lender for damages, (2) sue to force the lender to fix the deficiencies with the original foreclosure and re-foreclose, or (3) obtain a deed from the original owner, if the person is still even around. Options 1 and 2 are a non-starters. Homeowners want their titles cleared, not a huge legal battle with the likes of a U.S. Bank. And what about the lenders who are bankruptcy and out of business? What do homeowners do then? Option 3 has worked in cases I’ve handled. But what if the previous owner is long gone? Homeowners are out of luck then.

There is also a potential solution under a “foreclosure by entry theory” where home owners can wait 3 years from the foreclosure where their title will ripen into good title. However, in many of bungled foreclosures I’ve seen, the lenders have performed the entry improperly, so that option doesn’t work. And who’s wants to wait 3 years to sell or refinance their homes?

A Workable Solution?

The high court is being asked to craft a judicial solution to this huge mess. To backtrack, there has been legislation filed on these matters, to much initial fanfare, but it is still making its way through the legislative sausage making machine. If anyone has an legislative update, please comment below.

So isn’t it a good idea to have some kind of streamlined judicial remedy to help innocent home purchasers clear these toxic titles? I think so, and here’s why. First, the previous owners won’t get harmed because they defaulted on their mortgage, and in the vast majority of cases have no financial means or interest in making mortgage payments and returning to their foreclosed homes. If they want back in the game, well, pay your mortgage. Second, the innocent home buyers who purchased these toxic foreclosure titles won’t be left holding the bag and having to sue the foreclosing lenders many of whom are out of business. They won’t have to chase old owners across the U.S. either, often being forced to pay these owners ransom money to sign a deed over. Third, the title insurance companies won’t have to pay out huge claims and hire pricey attorneys to fix these messes, thereby keeping premiums level. Lastly, good public policy favors enabling blighted foreclosed properties to be sold and rehabilitated.

Better yet, get the banks to fund the system.

Broad Effect

Bevilacqua’s case could affect the securitized trusts that bundled mortgages and sold securities to investors. Like the Ibanez case, the court’s decision may resonate with other states as they grapple with the rights of new home buyers who may hesitate to complete a purchase for fear of uncertain title. That may be especially so in states such as Massachusetts that don’t require court action to seize a house.

“The Massachusetts case will have significant repercussions in many states that allow nonjudicial foreclosure,” Alan White, a law professor, commented to Businessweek. “The decision in Bevilacqua will not only determine the fate of past foreclosure sale deeds, but hopefully provide guidance so that lenders and their lawyers can get it right going forward.”

The final ruling should be release in several months. We’ll report on it then. In the meantime, I will continue to help clear the titles of the true victims of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez.

{ 18 comments }

I Have To Pay Tax On Selling My House?! Massachusetts Deed Stamps & Property Transfer Tax

by Rich Vetstein on May 1, 2011

in Closings, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

tax3“The only things certain in life are death and taxes.” — Benjamin Franklin

Massachusetts Deed Stamps / Transfer Tax

Much to every Massachusetts home sellers’ chagrin, there is a state tax on selling your home. Sometimes called deed stamps, transfer tax or excise tax, it’s a tax nevertheless, and sellers must pay it at closing. For every Massachusetts county except Barnstable and the Islands, the tax is $4.56 per thousand of the purchase price on the deed. For example, for a $500,000 purchase, the seller must pay $2,280 in taxes. That’s not chump change! In Barnstable County, the tax is $5.70 per thousand. Dukes (Martha’s Vineyard) and Nantucket counties charge an additional 2% land bank fee.

On the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, the transfer/deed tax will appear on line 1203.

The tax does not apply to transactions up to $100.00. That is why most “gift” transfers or between husband and wife recite consideration for $10.00 or the like, so as to avoid the deed/transfer tax.

Sellers, make sure you factor in this transfer tax, as well as the broker commission, when calculating the amount of your sale proceeds.

Click here for a handy Massachusetts deed / transfer tax calculator.

{ 6 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →