Ocean and waterfront views are some of the most valuable and fought-over property amenities in Massachusetts. The difference in price between a property with unobstructed ocean view versus one without — even on the same street– can be significant. Massachusetts zoning law books are filled with petty and expensive fights about even the most minimal obstructions of ocean views.
Kenner v. Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals(click to download), recently decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, falls into that category, and provides current guidance on one of the most important aspects of zoning challenges, a legal requirement called “standing.”
Blocked Ocean Views
For anyone practicing in the zoning trenches, it comes as no surprise that Brian and Carol Kenner were none to pleased when the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals issued a special permit to their neighbors Louis and Ellen Hieb to demolish their existing small cottage and rebuild their house on Chatharbor Lane–with an increase in height of 7 feet and corresponding obstruction of their Atlantic Ocean view. The Kenners, who live directly across the street, claimed that the Heib’s new home would block the light and ocean breezes to their deck and would lead to an increase in traffic in the neighborhood.
Minimal Impact
But after visiting the property, Land Court Judge Charles W. Trombly found that the Kenners failed to provide credible evidence that they would be harmed by the project. Their contention that the increased height would block light and ocean breezes or add to traffic were speculative or generalized opinions, the judge said.
The case went up to the Supreme Judicial Court where Justice Francis Spina ruled that unless a town’s zoning bylaw specifically provides that a zoning board should take into account the proposed structure’s visual impact on abutters, aesthetic view concerns “are not a basis for standing.” Chatham’s zoning bylaw indicates standing can be demonstrated if the plaintiff shows both “a particularized harm to the plaintiff’s own property and a detrimental impact on the visual character of the neighborhood as a whole,” Spina wrote, and the Kenners failed to satisfy this burden.
Harm, Not Just Impact, Required For Standing
My fellow counselor and friend, Daniel Dain, Esq. who represented the Town of Chatham, commented to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly that the SJC clarified for the first time the specific distinction between harm and impact in standing cases, where views, noise and traffic are central. “It has to be harm, not just impact. All impact is not harm,” Dan said.
Dan’s synopsis of the decision is spot on. Standing is always a threshold battle in zoning appeals. Abutters who challenge permits need to gather real, hard evidence — from traffic engineers and other experts — to prove the project will have a real and substantial impact on their protected property rights. Here, a minimal 7 foot increase in view obstruction just wasn’t good enough to prevent a neighbor from rebuilding his oceanview home.
Litigation Over Condominium Construction Can Derail Financing
It’s always humbling to be quoted in a major real estate publication such as Inman News. Last summer, I wrote about the nasty effect of the newer pending litigation Fannie Mae condo rules. Steve Bergsman, from Inman, was gracious enough to retell a story about how these rules left my client with a denial of his financing just days before his condo closing, leaving him living in a motel for weeks. (Another attorney represented him in the transaction, who I believe bordered on committing malpractice by not following my guidelines, below).
My legal advice for Realtors and condo buyers is to:
Have the condominium association disclose whether it is involved in any type of pending litigation which could trigger the Fannie Mae guidelines.
Get this information as early as possible, because it’s a deal killer.
I always put a provision in my purchase and sale agreement rider in which the seller represents there is no pending litigation involving the condo.
Attorney Richard Vetstein told me this story: A client was going to buy a unit in a condominium development and thought he had it all wrapped up; he had an agreement in hand, deposit down and was two days away from closing.
Then he got a call from his lender, who said there were issues. “Issues?” the client asked. Essentially, his lender said there was active litigation involving the condominium building, and the loan would not be approved by underwriters.
Vetstein, of the eponymous Vetstein Law Group in Framingham, Mass., has done a considerable amount of legal work in the always colorful condominium world. Of the client in the story, he said, “Luckily, I was able to negotiate his deposit back, but he lost the deal, and since he had sold his prior residence, for awhile he was living in a motel. It just ruined his life for a couple of months.”
The episode didn’t make the seller of the condo unit any happier, either. Buyers these days are extremely hard to come by.
So what happened?
Recent changes to the Fannie Mae Selling Guide, including some alterations that went into effect March 1, make that afternoon leisure time on your personal veranda with the ice tea in your tumbler and a Robert Patterson paperback in your hand more chilling than comforting.
Condo watchdogs generally are focusing on two changes that could affect your pocketbook, either as a homeowner or home seller. The first has to do with newly converted, non-gut rehabilitation condo projects, while the second, which affected Vetstein’s client, has to do with the collateral damage of an ongoing litigation.
Fannie Mae now declares mortgage loans in progress on a condo involved in any type of litigation, other than minor litigation (i.e., disputes over rights of quiet enjoyment), ineligible for delivery, said Orest Tomaselli, CEO of White Plains, N.Y.-based National Condo Advisors LLC.
“There are different types of litigation, from slip-and-fall cases to structural issues, so Fannie split it all up and any project where the HOA is named as a party defending litigation that relates to safety, structure (or) soundness of functional use (is) ineligible,” Tomaselli said. “These projects will not be able to enjoy Fannie Mae project approval nor the financing that results from it.”
The Fannie Mae guidelines read: “Any project (condo, co-op, or planned unit development) for which the homeowners association or co-op corporation is named as a party to pending litigation, or for which the project sponsor or developer is named as a party to pending litigation that relates to safety, structural soundness, habitability or functional use of the project, remains ineligible.”
What this means is, if your neighbor has some personal beef with the homeowners association or developer because his plumbing doesn’t work or the front door of the building has a bad lock and sues, well, that can affect you because a potential buyer can not get a Fannie Mae loan. Sure, the buyer can go to a bank and get a different loan, but that would just be more expensive.
What happened with Vetstein’s client was that a crazy, litigious unit owner was suing the condo association and prior builder for minor leaks.
“It was something that really should have been resolved by the trustees, builder or even insurer,” Vetstein explained. “It didn’t involve a lot of money, but the lawsuit was out there, pending and not resolved. There was no waiver because the litigation fell within these parameters of structural soundness and safety. Fannie Mae said, ‘Sorry, there’s no gray area here.’ ”
The changes present a conundrum for HOAs. It’s not uncommon in cold-weather states to experience poorly worked roofs resulting in water penetration of condominium units. Condo owners get upset, the HOA gets upset, and everyone wants to sue the builder or roofer. Unfortunately, this triggers a Fannie Mae issue.
“There is nothing the condo association can do about someone suing over defective conditions, but it certainly does have control over who they sue,” Vetstein said. “The HOA needs to know a lawsuit will have a ripple effect.”
The other problem for condo owners is specifically for those who live in developments that essentially have been converted from rentals into ownership units, or as Fannie Mae officially labels them, newly converted, non-gut-rehabilitation condo projects.
Those developments have to go through a Project Eligibility Review Service, or PERS.
The Fannie Mae Selling Guide updates read: “Many buildings are converted to condominiums without the replacement of major components resulting in eventual increased costs to unit owners for maintenance and major repairs. In order to mitigate the additional risk that newly converted, non-gut-rehabilitation projects pose, all newly converted, non-gut-rehabilitation condo projects must be submitted to PERS for review and approval.”
The problem is the cost to the HOA. Fannie Mae charges $1,200 for the review, plus $30 for every unit in the buildings, said Tomaselli. So, if you’re looking at 200-unit building, that’s $7,200 that has to paid out.
In addition, the newly converted non-guts have to undergo a reserve study to determine over a 30-year period of time what the repair costs are going to be in regard to such items as elevators, roofs, mechanical and structural systems, and the exterior.
“The current guidelines require that only 10 percent of the budget be set aside for reserve. Once the reserve study is done, an accurate number is given on what the reserve should be — and those numbers can be tremendous,” Tomaselli said.
The main goal of a reserve study is accuracy. “This guideline requiring reserve studies for new non-gut-rehab condominiums will ensure accurate reserve funding enforcement that will eliminate special assessments in most cases,” said Tomaselli.
It’s not a bad thing for Fannie Mae because it is making sure homeowners are protected — but for developments, increased maintenance can loom large.
Steve Bergsman is a freelance writer in Arizona and author of several books. His latest book, “After the Fall: Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade,” has been ranked as a top-selling real estate investment book for the Amazon Kindle e-reader.
Many home buyers today still need to sell their current homes and use the sale proceeds for their next purchase. Often, there is a closing in the morning on the “sell,” and a closing in the afternoon on the “buy.” This is called a “piggyback” or “back to back” sale.
Back in the boom days, we were doing piggyback transactions all the time, and lenders were able to offer special programs, like bridge loans, to facilitate these back to back transactions. The days of bridge loans, no-docs, and 100% financing may be over, according to Mortgage Network’s Mark Maoicca, but piggyback transactions are still going on, but in a changed market.
There are numerous factors and variables to consider when doing a piggyback transaction, from a legal, financial/lending and marketing perspective. There can be at least 11 different people involved – buyer, seller, 2 agents, up to 3 attorneys, loan officer, appraiser, home inspector and contractor.
Sales/Marketing
There are a number of considerations on the sale/marketing side according to Jon Ufland and Chuck Silverton of Prudential Unlimited Realty. When to put your home on the market so as to ensure a quick sale? Statistics show that the most sales activity in the Greater Boston area occurs in March, April and May, with families trying to get settled before the summer and back to school season ends. December through February is the dead zone. Getting a pre-sale home inspection and comparable market analysis before putting your home on the market are two good tips suggested by Jon and Chuck.
Lending
According to Mark, lenders are no longer offering bridge loans or 100% financing, which helped cash strapped sellers to close on their new purchases. Also, home equity lines are tougher to qualify for. No income verification and stated income loans are just about long gone for the recently self-employed. Mark also says that the days of “washing the rent” on income properties is over. You need a 2 year history of rental income for qualification purposes. You also need to factor in the required real estate tax and insurance escrow reserve in your mortgage payment affordability analysis.
Bottom line, confer with your loan officer and financial planner as early as possible in the process before putting your house on the market! Get those financial ducks lined up before….
Coordination & Control
The piggyback transaction works best when one person takes on the role of “project manager.” It’s usually your real estate agent or attorney. Communication and coordination is the recipe for a successful piggyback transaction.
On the legal side, the overriding goal is to keep your buyer’s feet to the proverbial coals on the sale while protecting your deposit on the buy. It may seem like common sense, but it’s best to hire the same attorney to handle both transactions. An experienced attorney will line up the two mortgage contingency deadlines so that your buyer will obtain a firm loan commitment as soon as possible (with no contingencies, especially the sale of other property), and you have sufficient time on your purchase to get your own firm commitment while protecting yourself from any worst case scenarios like job loss, defective title, etc. The attorney should always be on top of these important deadlines so he or she can ask for extensions and otherwise exercise any opt out rights. Failure to do that can result in the loss of your deposit. Delays are common today in the tighter lending environment.
The Big Day
As the closing day approaches, everyone gets into high gear, with the agents coordinating smoke certs and pre-closing walk-throughs, the attorneys drafting preliminary HUDs, deeds, and coordinating wires, and loan officers sending closing packages. Speaking of wires, your attorney should be able to coordinate a wire of your sale proceeds into the IOLTA account of the purchase closing attorney, so you have good funds to close.
The closing day is about as hectic as you can get. I suggesting giving your attorney a power of attorney so he or an associate can attend the closing on the sale, get on record, coordinate the funds, and you can deal with moving and attending the purchase closing in the afternoon.
Jon, Chuck, Marc, Rich and Mark have all worked together as a team on piggyback transactions. Don’t hesitate to contact us if you need expert assistance.
On December 16, 2010, Governor Patrick signed into law a greatly expanded and revised Massachusetts Homestead Act which will take effect on March 16, 2011.
Changing Definition of a “Family”
Since its inception in the 1850’s, the homestead statute, now MGL c. 188, was designed to protect a person’s home from the claims of the homesteader’s creditors. This protection extended not only to the homesteader but to his/her family as well. The legislature realized that the very concept of a “family” has changed over the years and that conflicting court decisions have created confusion regarding certain provisions of the existing homestead law. As a result, this year the legislature repealed the existing statute and replaced it with a new c. 188.
At the outset, the statute defines a family as (1) married individuals, both of whom own a home, and any minor child; (2) a married individual who owns a home, a non-titled spouse of the married individual and any minor child; or (3) an unmarried individual who owns a home and any minor child. For the purpose of the statute, a minor child is a person aged 21 and under.
The statute defines a home as the aggregate of any of the following: a single family dwelling including accessory structures and the land on which it is located, a 2-4-family dwelling including accessory structures and the land, a manufactured home and for the first time units in a residential condominium or in a cooperative are specifically mentioned.
Automatic Protection for $125,000
The new law provides for an automatic homestead exemption (Section 1C) in the amount of $125,000.00. It’s automatic in that it does not require recording anything in order to obtain its protection. As with the old statute, a homestead only applies to a person’s principal residence. Now, by definition, a person may have only 1 principal residence. In addition, in all mortgage transactions, the closing attorney must provide the borrower with a notice of the right to declare a homestead. The borrower must acknowledge receipt of this notice in writing. The notice must include a summary of the differences between the automatic homestead protection and the enhanced benefits acquired by making and recording a declaration of homestead.
Elective Protection For $500,000
The statute (Section 2) provides the procedure for declaring a homestead. This homestead, referred to as a Section 1B homestead, must be in writing and signed and acknowledged under the penalty of perjury by each owner and then recorded/filed at the appropriate Registry of Deeds. If the owner has a non-titled spouse, he/she must be identified. The declaration must state that each person named intends to or occupies the home as their principal residence. It is to be signed by both spouses if they are the co-owners and the home is or will be each ones principal residence. The homestead must be created by a separate instrument; it can not be incorporated in the deed of the home. The Section 1B exemption remains at $500,000.00.
The statute recognizes two new classes of owners- holders of a life estate and holders of a beneficial interest in a trust. If the home is owned in a trust, only the trustee need execute the homestead.
Elderly Homestead
The statute continues to provide for homesteads for the elderly (age 62 or older) and for disabled persons. There are specific recording requirements for each type of these Section 1A homesteads. The Section 1A exemption also remains at $500,000.00.
For the first time, the statute provides for stacking Section 1B and 1A homesteads on the same home. The statute contains mathematical formulas to calculate the available exemption depending on the way that the title is held between the owners. The statute makes it clear however that no person may concurrently hold rights under a Section 1A and Section1B homestead.
Termination of Homestead
Frequently for real estate attorneys, it is also important to know how to terminate an existing homestead.
A Section 1A homestead is terminated upon: (1) sale or transfer of the homesteader’s interest in the home, except where the elderly or disabled person is also the transferee; (2) a recorded release of the person’s homestead; (3) a subsequent declaration of homestead on another property; (4) the abandonment of the home as the principal residence by the homesteader; (4) upon the death of the homesteader; (5) as to a home owned in a trust, the execution of a deed or recorded release by the trustee.
A Section 1B (and the automatic Section 1C homestead) may be terminated by (1) a deed to a non-family member conveying the home, signed by the owner and a non-owner spouse or former spouse residing in the home as a principal residence as of the date of the deed; (2) a recorded release of the homestead, duly signed and acknowledged by the owner and a non-owner spouse or former spouse residing in the home as a principal residence as of the date of the release; (3) the abandonment of the home as the principal residence by the owner, the owner’s spouse, former spouse or minor children . Note that no person in the military service shall be deemed to have abandoned the home due to such service; (4) if the title is in a trust, by either (a) the execution of a deed or a release of homestead by the trustee or (b) action of a beneficial owner identified in the declaration, who is not a minor child, taken in the same manner as provided in clauses (2) and (3) above; or, (5) a subsequent recorded homestead under Section 1B on another property, except that the declaration shall terminate only the rights of the owner making the subsequent recorded homestead and the rights of that owner’s spouse and minor children who reside or intend to reside in the other property as their principal residence.
Effect of Mortgage Refinancing
Section 6 is of particular interest to real estate attorneys. It provides that an estate of homestead shall be subordinate to a mortgage encumbering the home executed by all the owners of the home. A non-titled spouse does not have to sign the mortgage. A mortgage lender shall not require a release of an existing homestead in a refinance. The statute controls and the mortgage does not have to state that a recorded homestead is subordinate to it.
Other Matters
The statute eliminates the problem of the so-called “silent termination” involving deeds between spouses, former spouses and other co-owners who individually or jointly hold a Section 1B or Section 1C homestead estate, deeds between trustees and trust beneficiaries and life tenants and remaindermen. In these situations, the homestead is not terminated unless it is expressly released, pursuant to the statute, by parties entitled to protection under the act.
The statute also provides that recording a second declaration of homestead on the same property relates back to the initial declaration. Under the old statute, the newer homestead would terminate the earlier one thus exposing the homesteader to the claims of intervening creditors.
As to existing homesteads, they are still valid despite the fact that the act under which they were created has been repealed or that their execution would be invalid under the new statute.
If you would like to discuss this or any other issue, please contact me directly at (617) 823-2719.
Rich’s Note: Thank you Harold for the informative post!
Two important take-aways: (1) If you don’t have a homestead declaration filed, get it filed. Contact our office and we can do it for you for less than $100; (2) if you already have a declaration of homestead recorded, you automatically get the protection of the new law, so you don’t have to do anything.
Nearly 30% of homes in Massachusetts are dependent upon Septic Systems, rather than municipal sewer systems. Sudbury, Wayland, Dover, Hopkinton, and many towns down the Cape are serviced by private septic systems.
Septic systems are governed by what’s commonly known as “Title V” or “Title 5” which is Title V of the state Environmental Code administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). These complex regulations administer the design, construction and operation of septic systems, and are of great importance to homeowners, real estate developers, lenders, Realtors, and attorneys. The rules affect as many as 650,000 Massachusetts homeowners with on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems.
Frequently Asked Questions About Title V
I am selling my home. What is the first thing I must do with my septic system?
The first thing that must be done is to have a Title V inspection, completed by an inspector who is licensed by the state and your town. A list of licensed inspectors is available at your local Board of Health office. Here is a Board of Health roster for Massachusetts. The BOH must be notified 24 hours in advance to any inspection, so that the Health Agent may attend the inspection, if his schedule allows. Any inspection completed without prior notification is not accepted and considered invalid.
According to Sudbury, Mass. Realtor Gabrielle Daniels Brennan, unless you have a very recently installed system, do not hire a company who also repairs and replaces the systems to conduct your Title V inspection. They only pump systems and inspect, and have no interest in anything else.
The inspector will determine whether your system “passes,” “fails” or “conditionally passes” (i.e., requires repairs).
How long is the Title V inspection valid?
A Title V inspection is considered valid for 2 years. However, if the homeowner has his septic system pumped every year, it is valid for 3 years.
My septic system Title V failed. What do I do now!?
If the inspection fails, your septic system must be repaired or replaced. If ownership of the house is not being changed, the homeowner may have up to two years to complete the repair. However, if the Health Agent deems the failure to be a health hazard, the homeowner can be required to begin the process of repairing it immediately.
Failed septic systems can be handled in a real estate sales transaction in two ways. First, the seller can undertake the work and complete it prior to closing, with a full sign off from the Board of Health. This is often the preferable course for all parties and the lender. Alternatively, the parties can agree to an escrow holdback to cover the cost of the septic repair plus a contingency reserve, and the work is undertaken after the closing. Some lenders don’t allow septic holdbacks, however.
What are the steps and permitting fees to install a new septic system?
The first step in beginning a septic repair is to hire an engineer to evaluate your land and to design a system that would be appropriate for your property. Once the engineer is hired, a percolation or “perc” test is scheduled. The perc test measures the rate at which water is absorbed into the ground and determines whether the soil is suitable for a septic system. Based on the results of the perc test, the size of your lot, and the number of bedrooms in your home, the engineer designs a septic system to serve the property. Once the plans have been drawn, four copies of the plans, two copies of the soil analysis, and a check for $175.00 must be submitted to the Board of Health office. The BOH has 45 days to review the plans and to either approve or reject them. If the plans are approved, the plans can be picked up and the installation of the system can begin. If the plans are rejected, the plans must be revised and an additional fee of $75.00 is charged to have them reviewed again. If the designed system requires state variances (done by the Department of Environmental Protection), an additional 90 days must be allotted for the review process.
When the job is completed is there any form of certification that it has been done and that it meets Title V standards?
At the completion of the job, (that is, when all work has been done according to the plans; when the engineer has submitted an “as-built” plan as to where the system was installed; and when the installer has submitted a certification statement), the Health Agent signs a Certificate of Compliance, (COC), which is issued to the installer. Upon payment for the work, the installer gives the COC to the homeowner.
How long does the process for repairing a septic system take, from beginning to end?
A homeowner should allow approximately 3 to 4 months for the installation of a septic system. The length of time can vary from system to system. There are a number of variables involved. The availability of the Health Agent to witness a “perc “ test is one. Because of the amount of work that has to be completed, engineers and installers are often busy for months in advance. In addition, if the designed system requires either local or state variances, time must be allotted for public / variance hearings. A system that is installed in less than 2 months (from start to finish) is the exception to the rule.
What is an average cost for the system?
New septic systems can range from $25,000 to $40,000. The type of system designed, the size of the lot, the number of bedrooms, the engineering fees, the requested variances, the type of soil, and the proximity of the system to water, all contribute to the cost of the system.
If I am required to replace my failed system and I do not have the money, what do I do?
Homeowners who cannot afford to repair their failed septic systems made apply for financial aid with the Massachusetts Home Septic Loan Program. Here is the MassHousing Web site. Here is the PDF for the Homeowner Septic Loan Repair program. Applications for this program are available at most local banking institutions. The loans are low interest and repayable over an extended period of time.
The state also provides a tax credit of up to $6,000 over 4 years to defray the cost of septic repairs to a primary residence. Forms are available from the Department of Revenue (DOR) to allow homeowners to claim up to $6,000 in tax credits for septic upgrades. The credit cannot exceed $1,500 in any year and may be spread out over 4 years. The tax credit is limited to work done on a primary residence only. Tax Form Schedule SC is the correct form for the tax credits. MassDOR Web site
I have a cesspool. Will that pass Title V?
You may be wondering how this all applies to cesspools. Cesspools are much harder to pass in Massachusetts. Does every single one automatically fail? No.
Only those cesspools that exhibit signs of hydraulic failure, are located very close to private or public water supplies, or otherwise do not protect or pose a threat to the public health, safety or the environment will need to be upgraded. Also, cesspools must be upgraded prior to an increase in design flow (e.g., the addition of a bedroom to a home.
________________________________________
For any questions concerning Title V and the septic rules and regulations, please contact me at [email protected].
MCLE (Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education) is holding their popular Real Estate Law Annual Conference on April 7, 2011, at 9:00AM at their offices located at 10 Winter Place, Boston, MA. You can also attend the conference virtually through their webcast on www.mcle.org.
I’m honored to be presenting at the conference on what else but — “Technology Update: Learn How To Leverage Cutting-Edge Technology To Streamline Your Practice.” Real estate tech experts, Jim Sifflard from First American Title, and George Warshaw, Esq. are presenting with me. There are also great sessions on Title Claims, Condominium Law, Ethical Issues and Environmental Concerns.
With the proliferation of cellular/wireless service and coverage, Massachusetts town and cities have been bombarded in the last 10 years with applications for zoning relief for new cell towers and related equipment. These applications – especially in residential neighborhoods – raise the ire of local residents who don’t want cell towers in their backyards. Homeowners worry about the effect of electromagnetic frequencies on their children, aesthetics, and the impact to their property values.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Local zoning boards’ ability to regulate cellular/wireless facilities, however, is significantly limited by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) which provides that local zoning decisions cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers, have the effect of prohibiting service, or regulate on the basis of the effects of radio frequency emissions. The Telecommunications Act has spawned a decade’s worth of litigation in Massachusetts, with wireless servicers’ slugging percentage in the David Ortiz range.
T-Mobile Seeks To Bridge Coverage Gap
The most recent victory by the wireless industry is T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. City of Lawrence. T-Mobile sought to fill a coverage gap beset by those dreaded dropped calls in Lawrence’s Prospect Hill neighborhood by building a six foot high antennae hidden in a “stealth chimney” on top of a condominium building in a residential zone. Lawrence’s zoning ordinance bars wireless equipment in residential zones except on city-owned land, and requires a 1,000-foot setback from any residential lot. T-Mobile had previously asked the city to make municipal land available for its facility, but got no response. Having no other option, T-Mobile applied for the necessary zoning approvals and variances from the ownership and setback requirements.
Lawrence’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA) denied T-Mobile’s application, stating that it could not find sufficient facts to approve. (In other words, the majority of the board didn’t want the cell antennae at that location). At the hearing, some members of the ZBA expressed their views that the coverage gap was not real, ignoring T-Mobile’s expert, and that the antenna should go on municipal land so that the city could benefit financially. T-Mobile appealed the denial.
Federal Judge Lays The Smack-Down
The TCA provides for expedited review in federal court, another major advantage for wireless servicers which can by-pass often lengthy state superior and land court appeals. In federal court Judge Gorton pretty much eviscerated the board’s decision, as “rote” and merely parroting the relevant factors. The judge also characterized as “too little, too late” Lawrence Mayor William Lantigua’s plan to open up alternative municipally-owned sites for public bidding. The judge ordered that the permits be granted.
Lessons To Be Learned
The lesson in this case for town zoning boards is pretty simple. If you are going to deny a cell tower permit application, think twice and very hard at that. Perhaps consult town counsel before issuing a final decision, before causing your town to spend thousands on taxpayer funded legal fees with no reasonable chance of success.
Residents faced with cell towers and antennae in their neighborhoods need the assistance of an experienced Massachusetts zoning attorney who can navigate the complex TCA regulatory maze and utilize competing wireless coverage expert testimony. Upholding a denial of a cell tower appeal is very complex and challenging, but some neighborhood groups have been successful, despite the unlevel playing field of the Telecommunications Act. Check out Plymouth’s StopCenterHillTower.org for a recent example.
When I sat on the Sudbury Zoning Board of Appeals I presided over several cell tower permit applications, so I know both sides of the coin. It’s difficult, but not impossible to stop a cell tower from invading your neighborhood.
If you have any questions about Massachusetts cell tower zoning appeals, contact me, Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. via email by clicking here.
One of the most important jobs of the closing attorney during a Massachusetts refinance or purchase transaction is to fully explain the numerous closing costs that a borrower (and seller) must pay at closing. The best way to explain Massachusetts real estate closing costs in a blog post is the same way we would explain it at the closing–by reviewing the HUD-1 Settlement Statement line by line.
Prior to the closing, you should have received a Good Faith Estimate of closing costs from your lender. A good mortgage professional will always explain closing costs before you arrive at the closing table. The Good Faith Estimate or GFE will be a precursor of what you’ll be charged at closing, and certain closing costs cannot vary by more than 10% from the GFE. Bring your GFE to the closing to compare it with the HUD Settlement Statement.
HUD First Page, Borrower’s Column
We’ll use an actual HUD from a recent transaction, deleting the parties and property of course. This is a purchase for $250,000, reflected in line 101. The buyer is taking out a loan of $243,662.00 (line 202) to finance the sale. This is a FHA low down payment loan where the borrower must pay FHA mortgage insurance.
The total settlement charges, which are fully broken down on page 2 of the HUD (get to that down below), paid for by the borrower are $7,758.09, line 103. Because the closing took place on Jan. 31, in the middle of the tax fiscal quarter, real estate taxes on line 106 must be adjusted and paid for by the borrower through the end of the quarter, 3/31. As is customary in Mass., the borrower is also paying for home heating oil paid for by the seller and left in the tank (line 109–$241.20).
Line 120 tallies up the total amount due from the borrower at closing. Deducted from that number is the buyer’s deposit of $2,500 (line 201), and the buyer’s new loan of $243,662.00 (line 202). This borrower also fortunately received a seller closing cost credit of $5,708.93 (line 204) and a lender closing cost credit of $609.16 (line 205). Those credits really helped this borrower defray the closing costs.
In this transaction, there is a difference of $6,250.00 between the gross amount due from the borrower less the amounts paid by or for the borrower, which must be paid at at the closing (line 303). The borrower must bring a certified or bank check payable to himself (for fraud protection) for that amount to the closing.
Page 2 of the HUD
Page 2 of the HUD Settlement Statement itemizes all of the various closing costs, both from the borrower’s and seller sides.
Line 700 Series–Broker Commissions
In Massachusetts, the seller pays the real estate broker commission. Here, the seller is paying a total of 5% of the purchase price, or $12,500.
Line 800 Series–Lender Closing Costs
In this transaction, the lender is charging an “origination fee” of $1,735.00. This is the fee for procuring the loan. The lender has also charged the borrower for an appraisal for $425.00 but the initials “POCB” means it was paid for outside closing by the borrower. There are also small charges for a credit report and flood certification.
Line 900–Daily Interest and Mortgage insurance
The borrower is responsible for paying interest on the new mortgage loan from the closing date to the first day of the following month. That’s why most closings take place at the end of the month. The borrower is charged one day of interest of $32.54 (line 901). As this borrower is not putting 20% down, this particular loan requires mortgage insurance of $2,412.50 paid at closing by the borrower (line 902).
Line 1000–Escrow Reserves
The vast majority of mortgage lenders require borrowers to fund a real estate tax and homeowner’s insurance escrow account. Occasionally, a lender will waive the escrow for a fee or small interest rate increase. This is an aspect of closing costs that many borrowers have difficulty understanding.
The escrow account helps you and the lender anticipate and manage payment of property expenses by including these expenses as a portion of your monthly mortgage payment. Think of the escrow account as a small savings account for these expenses. An incremental amount of these expenses is added to your monthly mortgage payment, in order to cover these expenses when they are due. The lender will pay, on your behalf, the real estate taxes due on a quarterly basis, as well as the homeowner’s insurance for the following year.
Each year, your escrow account is reviewed to determine if the amount being escrowed each month is sufficient to pay for any change in your real estate taxes or homeowner’s insurance premiums. At closing, the closing attorney will collect sufficient funds to start your escrow account, typically 2-3 months worth of real estate taxes and up to a 12 months of homeowner’s insurance. In this case, the borrower must fund the escrow account with $817.12 (line 1001), which consists of 3 months of homeowner’s insurance and 2 months of real estate taxes. Remember, when you sell your home (or refinance) you will recoup your escrow account monies.
Line 1100–Title Charges
The line 1100 series shows the fees associated with the title examination, closing attorney fees and title insurance. In all transactions the lender requires the borrower to pay for lender’s title insurance and the settlement or closing fee to the closing attorney. In this transaction, the borrower has opted to purchase his own owner’s title insurance policy which protects the owner’s property and is highly recommended for many reasons. Read our post on title insurance here. So the borrower is charged $1,799.00 plus $477.50 for all the title work, closing attorney and both lender’s and owner’s title insurance premiums. The fee for reviewing and drafting the purchase and sale agreement is also included in the settlement fee on line 1102.
Line 1200–Gov’t Fees
The county registry of deeds imposes fees for the recording of the deed ($125) and mortgage ($175) which the borrower pays. The borrower also paid recording fees for an “MLC” which is a municipal lien certificate and a declaration of homestead. The seller pays the fee for the release ($75). The seller also pays a state transfer tax of $2.28 per $500.00 of value.
In Closing…
That’s basically it. Remember that closing costs differ widely between lenders, loan products, loan amounts, and closing attorneys. Make sure you ask to review the HUD Settlement Statement prior to the closing. It should be ready the day before or that day. Again, you should always speak to your mortgage professional about closing costs before you arrive at the closing table.
If you would like to speak with our office about handling your purchase or refinance transaction, please contact us at [email protected] and check out our website at www.titlehub.com. Thanks!
First the robo-signing controversy. Then the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling. Now the next bombshell ruling in the foreclosure mess has just come down from a New York federal bankruptcy judge.
The case is In Re Agard (click here to download), and essentially throws a huge monkey wrench into a hugely important cog of the entire U.S. mortgage market, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. known as MERS.
What Is MERS?
MERS, even for many seasoned real estate professionals, is the most important entity you’ve never heard of. In the mid-1990s, mortgage bankers created MERS to facilitate the complex mortgage securitization system where hundreds of thousands of mortgage loans were (and still are) packaged and bundled as securities for sale on Wall Street. Each mortgage entered into the MERS system has a unique 18 digit Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) used to track a mortgage loan throughout its life, from origination to securitization to payoff or foreclosure. The MERS system was vital to the proliferation of the $10 trillion U.S. residential securitization mortgage market.
Critics say that the decision to create MERS was driven, in large part, to avoid paying recording fees charged by county registry of deeds which required that all mortgage transfers and assignments be properly recorded and indexed in publicly available registries of deeds. Thus, MERS was designed essentially as a privately run, national registry of deeds under which MERS would act as the record “owner” and depository of all mortgages participating in the system, while the mortgage notes and loans themselves were freely bought and sold on the secondary market. About 50% of all U.S. mortgages participate in the MERS system.
The Ruling: MERS Cannot Legally Transfer & Assign Mortgages
Bankruptcy court judge Robert E. Grossman’s ruling is a bombshell and appears to be the first federal ruling holding that MERS cannot legally do what it was set up to do: transfer and assign mortgages through its electronic registry. Judge Grossman ruled that the foreclosing lender had to show that it owned both the note and the mortgage — rejecting the popular theory that the “note-follows-the-mortgage” — and there was no evidence that it held the note. “By MERS’s own account, the note in this case was transferred among its members, while the mortgage remained in MERS’s name,” Grossman wrote. “MERS admits that the very foundation of its business model as described herein requires that the note and mortgage travel on divergent paths.”
The judge found that the MERS membership agreement wasn’t enough to assign the mortgage and that to do so the lender would have to give power of attorney or similar authority to MERS. MERS’s membership rules don’t create “an agency or nominee relationship” and don’t clearly grant MERS authority to take any action with respect to mortgages, including transferring them, Grossman wrote. Because the interests at issue concern “real property” — land and buildings — under state law, any transfer has to be in writing, which isn’t done under the MERS system, he said.
The judge concluded, rather harshly, that “MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best.”
Impact of the Decision
The impact of this ruling may be quite muted. First the ruling is “dicta” which means that the ruling didn’t have much to do with the case since the judge upheld the validity of the foreclosure. Second, this ruling comes from the lowest level of the federal bankruptcy court system in New York, and will surely be appealed to a federal appeals court, and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other courts have ruled in favor of MERS on the same issues, as well. The ruling could be overturned ultimately–if it gets there. Third, Congress and state legislatures could intervene, and bless what MERS has been doing for the past decade. The judge invited lawmakers to do just that.
Thus, it’s hard to say how much, if any, impact this ruling with have in other states or nationally. Plus, any easy fix would appear to be for MERS and its lender partners to go back, and record their mortgage assignments and pay the recording fees due.
That said, the decision definitely sends a shot across the bows of MERS and its partners (Fannie and Freddie), and should be watched closely by industry experts.
Having spent the entire weekend in a feeble attempt to shovel the snow and bludgeon the one foot thick ice dams off my roof, I’ve bit the bullet and hired a professional. No use risking life and limb, and doing a third rate job. I also have a nice one inch crack along my family room ceiling, no doubt caused by the huge ice damn above it.
My Facebook stream is filled with pleas from homeowners about ice dams and related winter snow and ice damage. I’m also hearing stories about price gouging on roof snow and ice removal. (According to Sudbury Realtor Gabrielle Daniels Brennan, you should be paying only between $300-$800, max.)
So, time to call in the professionals, and dust off my trusty Massachusetts homeowner’s insurance policy to see what’s covered and what’s not.
Ice Dam Insurance Coverage
Very few insurance policies cover ice dam or snow removal from your roof or anywhere else on your property for that matter. However, interior or exterior damage caused by an ice dam on your roof is typically covered. As with any insurance claim, call the claims department immediately and take photos of the damage.
Ice Dam Treatment & Prevention
In the short term, there are a couple things you can try.
Try to remove snow from the roof but only if it can be done safely. A roof rake or push broom can be used but may cause damage to the shingles. If it’s not possible to remove the snow safely, call a professional like I did.
Chisel grooves into the dam to allow the water behind it to drain off. This is a good emergency measure, especially if rain or a sudden thaw is coming. Be careful not to damage those shingles!
Fill an old pair of your wife’s pantyhose with calcium chloride snow melt and lay it across the dam. I’m not kidding! I did this over the weekend and it seemed to work. It will help to melt the dam and also keep that area of the roof clear. DO NOT USE ROCK SALT! It will stain the roof and siding. It is best for small dams or prevention. It’s also a good idea to scrape the snow off the roof first.
To prevent ice dams in the longer term, keeping warm air from escaping into the attic is the first course of action. In addition to helping resolve ice dam issues, it will result in a more comfortable and less expensive to heat home.
Frozen Pipes Insurance Coverage
Not all companies pay to have frozen pipes thawed by professionals. Some will though. Most policies cover pipe replacement and water damage. The coverage may not apply if you turned the furnace off for the winter without winterizing the house and its contents.
Frozen Pipe Prevention
Frozen water in pipes can cause water pressure buildup between the ice blockage and the closed faucet at the end of a pipe which leads to pipes bursting at their weakest point. Pipes in attics, crawl spaces and outside walls are particularly vulnerable to freezing in extremely cold weather. Holes in outside walls for TV, cable or telephone lines allow cold air to enter the house.
To keep water in the pipes from freezing, take the following precautions:
• Fit exposed pipes with insulation sleeves or wrapping to slow the heat transfer. The more insulation the better.
• Seal cracks and holes in outside walls and foundations near water pipes with caulking.
• Keep cabinet doors open during cold spells to allow warm air to circulate around pipes, particularly in the kitchen and bathroom.
• Keep a slow trickle of water flowing through faucets connected to pipes that run through and unheated or unprotected space. Drain the water system especially if your house will be unattended during cold periods.
Interruption of Services
If you lose power during a storm, an all-risk homeowner’s policy usually pays for spoiled food, repairs to damage caused by loss of power, and appliances damaged by the outage. Many policies also will pay for shelter when you lose power for extended periods during the winter. If you lose heat and fail to take steps to prevent pipes from freezing, your policy may not cover the resulting damage.
Harold Clarke, Esq., Senior Underwriter for Westcor Title Insurance Company–New England say the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision could be one of the most important real estate decisions in recent memory. He explains how it will impact the Massachusetts real estate market, and what may happen in the future. Also check out Westcor New England’s new YouTube channel.
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin filed legislation last Friday to give the Land Court authority to create a special master to deal with foreclosures that may have occurred improperly. Anyone seeking to challenge the legitimacy of a foreclosure would have one year to file a lawsuit in the court.
Galvin’s bill follows a Supreme Judicial Court decision in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, upholding a 2009 Land Court ruling that a bank or lender must have proper documentation proving it holds a title before foreclosing on a home.
“It’s opened the door to anyone that wants to question a foreclosure that’s already moved forward,” Galvin said of the decision. As the secretary of state, Galvin is the state’s register of deeds. Galvin’s bill will go to the Legislature for debate.
The special court could play host to homeowners who purchased a foreclosed home staking claim against a former homeowner who may have faced an improper foreclosure. Galvin pointed out that about 40,000 foreclosures have taken place in Massachusetts since 2006.
“I doubt that half of them are going to be involved in this,” Galvin said. “I don’t know if it’s 5 percent. But if it’s 5 percent, that’s 2,000 properties.”
Depending on the numbers of foreclosure affected, this may be a step in the right direction–as long as homeowners are able to obtain clear title and get reimbursement of any out of pocket expenses dealing with a problem they didn’t create. As with any special court or master, there’s always a short statute of limitations imposed. So we’ll keep an eye out on that.
Breaking News (10/18/11): The Court has issued its opinion, affirming the Land Court’s dismissal. For a full analysis, click here.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has taken up an appeal about 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 a few weeks ago. This case 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.
The case is Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, and can be read here. In Bevilacqua, Land Court 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 “quiet title” action to establish his ownership rights because he never had good title in the first place. “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. The net effect of the ruling is that the innocent buyer’s only remedy is to sue the foreclosing lender for damages–not a great option–or force the lender to fix the deficiencies with the original foreclosure–if that’s possible at all.
Estimating how many purchasers have been affected by Ibanez defects is difficult. There have been over 40,000 foreclosures in Massachusetts in the last 5 years, and over 12,000 last year alone, up 32% from the year before. A Boston Globe columnist recently performed a rudimentary analysis of foreclosed properties in Chelsea, and found that about 33% may have been afflicted with Ibanez-type deficiencies.
Many people who purchased homes at foreclosure sales may not even know their titles are problematic–until they try to refinance or sell. So this problem will likely take years to ultimately resolve, unless the legislature comes up with some type of solution. And these problems may go back a very long way–5 or even 10 years in the past.
Bloomberg News has a great write up about the case here. I was quoted in the Bloomberg piece about the significance of the problem:
The third-party issue has become a major one for title insurers in the state, said Richard D. Vetstein, a real-estate lawyer in Framingham, Massachusetts.
“What’s going to happen to all these people?” Vetstein said. “The people who don’t have title insurance are really in big trouble.”
The court may have left the issue of third-party buyers unaddressed in Ibanez anticipating a ruling in the Bevilacqua case, said Thomas Adams, a partner at New York law firm Paykin Krieg & Adams LLP.
“That’s a big issue to leave outstanding,” said Adams, a former analyst at bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc. “If Judge Long’s decision holds, then that’s a big deal.”
If you purchased property out of a foreclosure sale within the last 10 years, you should have a title examination performed to assess whether you have defective title. Needless to say, if you are considering buying property out of foreclosure (or not), these cases are the very reason why you must obtain an owner’s title insurance policy! Contact us for more information.
A new Harvard report predicts a big jump in home remodeling – and with markets like Greater Boston that have lots of older homes leading the way. With the real estate market in recovery mode, a lot of folks in the last few years have put their money towards additions, in-law suites, finished basements, expanded garages, tear-downs, and other major home remodeling projects. In some cases, however, these projects require a special permit from the local zoning code. Here are some frequently asked questions about special permits under the Massachusetts Zoning Law. (I will cover variances for the next post).
Why Do I Need A Special Permit?
The most common reason why a Special Permit is necessary is that the proposed dwelling or the new addition does not meet the setback requirements set forth in the local zoning bylaw. Setbacks are buffer zones surrounding your boundary lines which provide for a “no-build zone.” For example, in the Sudbury, Mass. zoning code for the basic residential district, the side yard setback is 20 feet, the rear yard setback is 30 feet, the front yard set back is 40 feet, and the maximum structure height is 2.5 stories, or 35 feet. So if your proposed in-law suite juts into the side yard setback of 20 feet, then you will need to obtain a special permit from the zoning board of appeals (ZBA).
The other reason you may need a special permit is if your property is “non-conforming” and you wish to make a major expansion or alteration to it. “Non-conforming” means that the zoning code has changed since your home was originally built. For example, in Sudbury, the basic residence zoning district is now a minimum of nearly 1 acre. Many Sudbury homes built in the 60’s are way under 1 acre, so they are “non-conforming.” Virtually any tear-down and major reconstruction or alteration of a non-conforming property will trigger review by the building inspector and the application for a special permit from the local zoning board.
What Do I Need To Do To Get A Special Permit?
Obtaining a special permit requires a formal application to the zoning board with your plan, notice to your abutters, and the presentation of your application in front of the board at the public hearing. It is a formal legal proceeding, and can be complex giving the nature of the zoning issues and the extent of any neighborhood opposition. The chances of success rise dramatically if you have an experienced Massachusetts zoning attorney handling the zoning application. I was an associate member on the Sudbury zoning board for 9 years, and have appeared before countless boards in other towns.
What Are The Legal Requirements For A Special Permit?
The specific requirements for a special permit differ from town to town. But they all have the same general theme. Here is the Sudbury Mass. standard:
That the use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw;
That the use is in an appropriate location and is not detrimental to the neighborhood and does not significantly alter the character of the zoning district;
Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use;
That the proposed use would not be detrimental or offensive to the adjoining zoning districts and neighboring properties due to the effects of lighting, odors, smoke, noise, sewage, refuse materials or other visual nuisances;
That the proposed use would not cause undue traffic congestion in the immediate area.
What Happens At The Public Hearing?
The Board Chairman will open the hearing by reading the application or legal ad into the record. The applicant and/or their attorney is then called to make their presentation to the Board. Correspondence received from other town boards and or committees is read into the record as well as any correspondence from abutters. The Board members may ask questions of the applicant. The Chairman will ask if any audience members wish to speak.
For residential additions, tear downs and the like, the board is generally concerned with the general impact, if any, to the abutters, any safety or traffic issues, stormwater runoff, septic issues, and visual issues. Early communication with your neighbors is vital to ensuring the approval of your project. Neighborhood opposition to your application will decrease the likelihood of approval. While the board is technically not supposed to be a “second architect” on the project, many board members often provide comments and suggestions about the design of the project.
After all of the input the Board may close the public portion and discuss the request among themselves. The Board typically makes a decision at the end of their deliberations.
What Happens After The Board Reaches A Decision?
Once the Board makes a final decision, it is written up and and recorded with the Town Clerk. After a 20 day appeal period, the permit is mailed to the applicant, who then files the permit with the county Registry of Deeds. A copy is forwarded to the Board of Appeals Office and the Building Department. The Building Department may not issue a building permit or occupancy permit without receiving a copy of that recorded decision.
Can I Appeal The Board’s Decision?
Yes, you may appeal the decision in the Superior Court. You must act very quickly however, as appeals must be filed within 20 days of the filing of the decision with the Town Clerk. Zoning appeals are very complex and involve the submission of evidence at a trial before a Superior Court judge. It’s not something that should be undertaken without an attorney.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Zoning Attorney, who formerly sat on the Sudbury, Mass. Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Vetstein handles zoning matters across the state including the Metrowest towns of Framingham, Natick, Wayland, Weston, Ashland, Sudbury, Wellesley, Northborough, Southborough and Westborough. He can be reached at[email protected]or 508-620-5352.
On January 7, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rendered its decision in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. Before discussing the Court’s decision, here is a brief review of the procedural history of the case.
The Land Court’s decision in the Ibanez case and its two consolidated cases had created a conflict with the Massachusetts Real Estate Bar Association’s Title Standard #58 and its underlying rationale. Pursuant to the title standard, a title is not defective by reason of “The recording of an assignment of Mortgage executed either prior, or subsequent, to foreclosure where said Mortgage has been foreclosed, of record, by the Assignee.” In a nutshell, this means that if B forecloses a mortgage originally held by A, it is immaterial whether A’s assignment predates or postdates the foreclosure sale.
In Ibanez and in the other two companion cases-Rosario and Larace-the Land Court ruled on the validity of three different scenarios relating to the date of the assignment vis- a- vis the date of the first publication of the mortgagee’s sale of real estate/foreclose sale. In Rosario, the assignment was in existence and in recordable form (although not recorded) at the time of the first publication. In Larace, the assignment was dated after the date of first publication but had an “effective date” which predated the first publication. In Ibanez, the assignment was executed after the date of first publication.
At first blush, based on the Title Standard, it would appear that all three foreclosures were valid. Unfortunately, the Land Court disagreed. In fact, the Land Court found that only the Rosario foreclosure was valid. The Land Court held that G.L. c. 244, Section 14 must be given by the “holder of the mortgage.” Failure to do so renders the “sale void as a matter of law.” As a result, the foreclosures in Ibanez and Larace were invalidated since they did not comply with the statute. The Land Court held that it is not necessary to record the assignment prior to publishing but only that it be in existence and in recordable form at such time.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the judgment. On October 14, 2009, Judge Long rendered his decision which denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment.
The Land Court noted that in each case the bank was the only bidder and bought back at a discount from appraised value which wiped out the defendants’ equity and created a deficiency. The foreclosing mortgagees could not get title insurance. The plaintiffs suggested that there were documents that would demonstrate that pre-notice and pre-foreclosure assignments existed. The Land Court granted the plaintiffs leave to produce such documents provided they were in the form they were in at the time the foreclosure sale was noticed and conducted. The plaintiffs produced the notes and assignments in blank which are not suitable for recording since there is no assignee listed. The Land Court found that the plaintiffs’ own securitization documents showed that such assignments were required. With all available files, it took 10 months in one of the cases and 14 in the other to obtain the assignments in recordable form. Such a burden should not fall on the high bidder at the foreclosure sale. “A bidder does not expect to purchase the right to a potential lawsuit, which only entitle him or her to actually obtain the property if such lawsuit is successful.”
The plaintiffs argued that they followed “industry standards and practice.” The Land Court said that if this is true, they should seek a change in the law.
The SJC granted direct appellate review and affirmed the Land Court’s judgment. The SJC held that “We agree with the judge that the plaintiffs, who were not the original mortgagees, failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result, they did not demonstrate that the foreclosure sales were valid to convey title to the subject properties, and their requests for a declaration of clear title were properly denied.”
The plaintiffs had the burden of proving the validity of their foreclosures. Since Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state, there must be strict compliance with the terms of the statutory power of sale. The Court noted that only “the mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns” can exercise the statutory power of sale.
Unlike the Land Court, however, the Court continued:
“We do not suggest that an assignment must be in recordable form at the time of the notice of sale or the subsequent foreclosure sale, although recording is likely the better practice. Where a pool of mortgages is assigned to a securitized trust, the executed agreement that assigns the pool of mortgages, with a schedule of the pooled mortgage loans that clearly and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder. However, there must be proof that the assignment was made by a party that itself held the mortgage.”
The Court ruled that possession of the note does not allow the holder to foreclose.
“In Massachusetts, where a note has been assigned but there is no written assignment of the mortgage underlying the note, the assignment of the note does not carry with it the assignment of the mortgage. Rather, the holder of the mortgage holds the mortgage in trust for the purchaser of the note, who has an equitable right to obtain an assignment of the mortgage, which may be accomplished by filing an action in court and obtaining an equitable order of assignment.”
The Court stated that “the mortgages securing these notes are still legal title to someone’s home or farm and must be treated as such.”
The Court was not persuaded that post-foreclosure assignments were valid pursuant to REBA Title Standard No. 58 and industry practice. The Court found that such “reliance is misplaced because this proposition is contrary to…G.L. c.244, Section 14.”
The Court rejected the warning in REBA’s amicus brief that “If the rule as announced in these decisions is not limited to prospective application, inequitable results that will cause hardship and injustice are inevitable, and will likely be widespread.”
The Court noted that its rulings are prospective only if they make a “significant change in the common law.” Such was not the case here where the law was well settled. “All that has changed is the plaintiffs’ apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.” In a concurring opinion, this was referred to as “the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles of their assets.”
As Judge Long had suggested in his decision, perhaps it is time to change the law. Since the SJC began its discussion by noting that “Massachusetts does not require a mortgage holder to obtain judicial authorization to foreclose on a mortgaged property,” and reading between the lines, one solution would be for Massachusetts to adopt judicial foreclosures. Another possibility would be to return to the earlier practice in which the Land Court/Superior Court would review and approve in writing the foreclosure documents prior to recording. Perhaps the easiest solution would be to require the plaintiff in its Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage to cite the recording information for the assignment(s) by which it became the holder rather than simply to state “Your plaintiff is the assignee and holder of a mortgage.” If the assignments did not exist, the complaint could not be filed.
I think that the problem in Ibanez is that US Bank laid out the chain of title to the mortgages on the record but then could not document the supposed assignments into it. Justice Cordy referred to this as utter carelessness. Therefore, I don’t think that reforeclosure is possible since US Bank can’t show that it was either then or now the holder.
In general, I believe that you can reforeclose under the theory that since the original foreclosure was invalid, the power of sale was never exercised.
The case stands for the proposition that the foreclosing lender must be the holder of the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. The SJC said that this is well established law and that reliance on REBA Title Standard No. 58 is misplaced as it is contrary to the law.
It will be interesting to see how “widespread” the SJC’s decision becomes.
If you would like to discuss this or any other issue, please contact me directly via email.
Harold Clarke, Esq.
New England Regional Counsel, Westcor Land Title Insurance Co.
The case certainly has national implications as the Massachusetts SJC is the first state supreme court to weigh in on the legal ramifications of widespread irregularities in the residential securitized mortgage industry. Over half of U.S. states have foreclosure laws similar to Massachusetts’ regarding the assignment of mortgages, such as California and Georgia. Other courts across the country will likely be influenced by the ruling, especially since the SJC is widely regarded as one of the most respected state supreme courts in the country.
But is the Ibanez ruling really the next Foreclosure Apocalypse?
That remains to be seen. But the answer to the question will likely rest with what has transpired under little-known, complex mortgage securitization pooling and servicing agreements, known as PSA’s. These complex agreements may unlock the key to who, if anyone, owns these non-performing mortgage loans and has the legal right to foreclose.
The Ibanez Fact Pattern: Mortgage Assignments In Blank, A Common Practice
On December 1, 2005, Antonio Ibanez took out a $103,500 loan for the purchase of property at 20 Crosby Street in Springfield, MA secured by a mortgage to the lender, Rose Mortgage, Inc. The mortgage was recorded in the county registry of deeds the following day. Several days later, Rose Mortgage executed an assignment of this mortgage in blank, that is, an assignment that did not specify the name of the assignee. The blank space in the assignment was at some point stamped with the name of Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) as the assignee, and that assignment was recorded in the registry of deeds on June 7, 2006. Before the recording, on January 23, 2006, Option One also executed an assignment of the Ibanez mortgage in blank.
Option One then assigned the Ibanez mortgage to Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which assigned it to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which then assigned it to the Structured Asset Securities Corporation, which then assigned the mortgage, pooled with approximately 1,220 other mortgage loans, to U.S. Bank, as trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z. With this last assignment, the Ibanez and other loans were pooled into a trust and converted into a mortgage-backed securities pool that was bought and sold by investors.
On April 17, 2007, U.S. Bank started a foreclosure proceeding in Massachusetts state court. Although Massachusetts requires foreclosing lenders to follow the Soldier’s and Sailor’s Servicemember’s Act to ensure the debtor is not in the military, it is considered a non-judicial foreclosure state. In the foreclosure complaint, U.S. Bank represented that it was the “owner (or assignee) and holder” of the Ibanez mortgage. At the foreclosure sale on July 5, 2007, the Ibanez property was purchased by U.S. Bank, as trustee for the securitization trust, for $94,350, a value significantly less than the outstanding debt and the estimated market value of the property.
On September 2, 2008–14 months after the foreclosure sale was completed – U.S. Bank obtained an assignment of the Ibanez mortgage.
The major problem was that as the time U.S. Bank initiated the foreclosure proceeding, it did not possess (and could not produce evidence of) a legally effective mortgage assignment evidencing that it held the Ibanez mortgage.
Pooling and Servicing Agreements are part of the complex mortgage securitization lending agreements. As one securitization expert explains, a Pooling and Servicing Agreement is the legal document creating a residential mortgage backed securitized trust. The PSA also establishes some mandatory rules and procedures for the sales and transfers of the mortgages and mortgage notes from the originators to the securitized trusts which hold the millions of bundles of mortgage loans.
The Ibanez ruling clearly invalidates a common practice in the sub-prime mortgage securitization industry of assigning the mortgage in blank and not recording it until after the foreclosure process has started. The Court held that there must be evidence of a valid assignment of the mortgage at the time the foreclosure process starts which would establish the current ownership of the mortgage.
Left open by the Court was what evidence would suffice to establish such ownership, specifically referencing PSA’s:
“We do not suggest that an assignment must be in recordable form at the time of the notice of sale or the subsequent foreclosure sale, although recording is likely the better practice.Where a pool of mortgages is assigned to a securitized trust, the executed agreement that assigns the pool of mortgages, with a schedule of the pooled mortgage loans that clearly and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder. However, there must be proof that the assignment was made by a party that itself held the mortgage.”
This language opens the door for Massachusetts foreclosing lenders to move ahead with foreclosures and cure title defects by using PSA’s to prove proper assignment of the mortgage loans. That is, if they can produce proper documentation that the defaulting mortgage was actually transferred into the pool and assigned to the end-holder before the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. Whether lenders can do this is another story.
Have Lenders Complied With The PSA’s?
The major problem for banks is mounting evidence is that originating lenders like Countrywide and Bank of America never transferred a vast number of loans into the securitized trusts in the first place. Josh Rosner, a well respected financial analyst, issued a client advisory in October, advising of widespread violations of pooling and servicing agreements on mortgages. Mr. Rosner counseled that although PSA’s require transfer of the promissory notes into the securitized trusts, that hardly ever occurred in the white hot run-up of securitized loans in the last decade. He also says that the mortgage assignments which must accompany each note are routinely ignored or left blank. (This was the major problem in the Ibanez case).
Mr. Rosner said:
“We believe nearly every single loan transferred was transferred to (securitized trusts) in “blank” name. That is to say the actual loans were apparently not, as of either the cut-off or closing dates, assigned to the (securitized trusts) as required by the PSA.”
Mr. Rosner concludes in this chilling statement:
There have been a large numbers of foreclosure proceedings where, because of improper assignments, the trust has been unable to demonstrate the right to foreclose. It is thus that we raised concern about the transfer “in blank name.” We do believe it likely the rush to move large volumes of loans may well have resulted in operational failures in the “true sale” process by some selling firms and trustees. Were this “missing assignment” problem, which we are witnessing in individual foreclosure proceedings, to be found to have resulted from widespread failure of issuers and trusts to properly transfer rights there would be appear to be a strong legal basis for the calling into question securitizations.
“It may mean investors who think they bought mortgage- backed securities bought securities that aren’t backed by anything,” said Kurt Eggert, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California. Well, that’s already happened. Check out this lawsuit by MBIA Insurance against Credit Suisse 0ver a bad securitization loan deal.
Using the Ibanez case as a guide, CNBC.com Senior Editor, John Carney wrote a humorous yet ominous hypothetical conversation between U.S. Bank, the servicer, and Option One:
US Bank dude: “Hey, can I speak to whoever it is who is handling the Ibanez mortgage?”
Option One guy (after some delay): “No one handles that mortgage. We sold it five years ago to Lehman and closed the file.”
US Bank: “Right. Okay. Well, I need you to find someone who will execute an assignment of the mortgage to me.”
Option One: “First of all, no one who handled that mortgage still works here. You might have heard about the mortgage meltdown, right? Second, we sold it to Lehman, according to the file.”
US Bank: “Right. But I bought it from Lehman.”
Option One: “So get the assignment from Lehman.”
US Bank: “They’re an empty company that is in bankruptcy.”
Option One: “I’ve heard about that. Thanks for the news.”
US Bank: “So I need you to execute the assignment.”
Option One: “First of all, you’re going to have to show me that you bought the loan from Lehman. Second, I need to talk to legal to make sure I can assign a mortgage to someone we never dealt with. Third, how much are you willing to pay me to do all this?”
US Bank: “Pay you? I already own the mortgage.”
Option One: “The mortgage we sold to Lehman. If Lehman asks for the assignment, we’ll do it as part of that deal. But, as far as I can tell, I don’t owe you anything. If you want an assignment, you’re going to at least be paying the legal bills for the legal opinion that says it’s okay for us to do this.”
US Bank: “You don’t have to be an [expletive deleted] about this.”
Option One: “I also don’t have to give you an assignment.”
Now take that scenario, and multiple it by a factor of 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000….see what we are talking about here? As Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitan so artfully commented, “deal design was fine, deal execution was terrible.”
Before the Ibanez ruling came down Bloomberg News said the best scenario is that the disputes are deemed as legal technicalities, which would cause a one-year delay in foreclosures. In the medium case, years of litigation will ensue. In the worst case, the problem becomes systemic, causing “the mortgage market to grind to a halt as title insurers refuse to insure mortgages involving existing homes.”
Well, we now know from the Ibanez decision that this is hardly a “legal technicality.” So we are in the medium or worst case scenarios.
For those thousands (or millions?) of defaulted loans which were “assigned in blank,” I’m simply not sure if or how mortgage lenders are going to be able to cure the title defects they created. It’s going to take some major effort and creative lawyering, that’s for sure.
In some cases, I’m afraid, these problems may be fatal. That is, once U.S. Bank, for example, obtained a mortgage assignment executed and effective after the start of the foreclosure, which the SJC said was no good, they cannot then go back and re-create a new assignment dated prior to the foreclosure. That’s called back-dating, and would be fraudulent. And there’s also the issue of all these original promissory notes which were never transferred. Where are those? In some dingy warehouse in Texas. Good luck finding them.
Rather scary, huh?
Don’t Believe The Hype? Proceed At Your Own Peril
Not all investment analysts, however, expect financial chaos. The controversy may cause a six-month delay in foreclosures and “have a muted effect on valuation” of about $154 billion of mortgage-backed securities, Laurie Goodman, senior managing director of Amherst Securities Group LP in New York, wrote in a note to investors. “Servicers will incur high costs both from re-processing loans that are in the process of foreclosure as well as from defending themselves in litigations,” Goodman wrote. “And investors definitely need to question the cash flows they are receiving on private-label MBS, to ascertain that they are not paying for expenses that rightfully belong to servicers.”
There are several important and unanswered questions which remain. How many pools of mortgage loans are affected by the “assignment in blank” and related irregularities in the servicing pools? How many pools are affected by the missing or lost promissory notes? How many pools are affected by assignment executed after the foreclosure started? Will California and other states with huge foreclosure rates follow the Ibanez ruling?
“[W]hat is surprising about these cases is … the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.” –Justice Robert Cordy, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled against foreclosing lenders and those who purchased foreclosed properties in Massachusetts in the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. Here is the link for the decision. I’ve posted the decision below, and I’ve done a video blog embedded below.
Background
For those new to the case, the problem the Court dealt with in this case is the validity of foreclosures when the mortgages are part of securitized mortgage lending pools. When mortgages were bundled and packaged to Wall Street investors, the ownership of mortgage loans were divided and freely transferred numerous times on the lenders’ books. But the mortgage loan documentation actually on file at the Registry of Deeds often lagged far behind.
In the Ibanez case, the mortgage assignment, which was executed in blank, was not recorded until over a year after the foreclosure process had started. This was a fairly common practice in Massachusetts, and I suspect across the U.S. Mr. Ibanez, the distressed homeowner, challenged the validity of the foreclosure, arguing that U.S. Bank had no standing to foreclose because it lacked any evidence of ownership ofthe mortgage and the loan at the time it started the foreclosure.
Mr. Ibanez won his case in the lower court in 2009, and due to the importance of the issue, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took the case on direct appeal.
The SJC Ruling: Lenders Must Prove Ownership When They Foreclose
The SJC’s ruling can be summed up by Justice Cordy’s concurring opinion:
“The type of sophisticated transactions leading up to the accumulation of the notes and mortgages in question in these cases and their securitization, and, ultimately the sale of mortgaged-backed securities, are not barred nor even burdened by the requirements of Massachusetts law. The plaintiff banks, who brought these cases to clear the titles that they acquired at their own foreclosure sales, have simply failed to prove that the underlying assignments of the mortgages that they allege (and would have) entitled them to foreclose ever existed in any legally cognizable form before they exercised the power of sale that accompanies those assignments. The court’s opinion clearly states that such assignments do not need to be in recordable form or recorded before the foreclosure, but they do have to have been effectuated.”
The Court’s ruling appears rather elementary: you need to own the mortgage before you can foreclose. But it’s become much more complicated with the proliferation of mortgage backed securities (MBS’s) –which constitute 60% or more of the entire U.S. mortgage market. The Court has held unequivocally that the common industry practice of assigning a mortgage “in blank” — meaning without specifying to whom the mortgage would be assigned until after the fact — does not constitute a proper assignment, at least in Massachusetts.
My Analysis
Winners: Distressed homeowners facing foreclosure
Losers: Foreclosing lenders, people who purchased foreclosed homes with this type of title defect, foreclosure attorneys, and title insurance companies.
Despite pleas from innocent buyers of foreclosed properties and my own predictions, the decision was applied retroactively, so this will hurt Massachusetts homeowners who bought defective foreclosure properties.
If you own a foreclosed home with an “Ibanez” title issue, I’m afraid to say that you do not own your home anymore. The previous owner who was foreclosed upon owns it again. This is a mess.
The opinion is a scathing indictment of the securitized mortgage lending system and its non-compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure law. Justice Cordy, a former big firm corporate lawyer, chastised lenders and their Wall Street lawyers for “the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.”
If you purchased a foreclosure property with an “Ibanez” title defect, and you do not have title insurance, you are in trouble. You may not be able to sell or refinance your home for quite a long time, if ever. Recourse would be against the foreclosing banks, the foreclosing attorneys. Or you could attempt to get a deed from the previous owner. Re-doing the original foreclosure is also an option but with complications.
If you purchased a foreclosure property and you have an owner’s title insurance policy, contact the title company right away.
The decision carved out some room so that mortgages with compliant securitization documents may be able to survive the ruling. This will shake out in the months to come. A major problem with this case was that the lenders weren’t able to produce the schedules of the securitization documents showing that the two mortgages in question were part of the securitization pool. Why, I have no idea.
The decision opens the door for foreclosing lenders to prove ownership with proper securitized documents. There will be further litigation on this. Furthermore, since the Land Court’s decision in 2009, many lenders have already re-done foreclosures and title insurance companies have taken other steps to cure the title defects.
We don’t know how other state court’s will react to this ruling. The SJC is one of the most well respected state supreme courts in the country. This decision was well-reasoned and I believe correct given that the lenders couldn’t even produce any admissible evidence they held the mortgages. The ruling will certainly be followed in states (such as California) operating under a non-judicial foreclosure system such as Massachusetts.
Watch for class actions against foreclosing lenders, the attorneys who drafted the securitization loan documents and foreclosing attorneys. Investors of mortgage backed securities (MBS) will also be exploring their legal options against the trusts and servicers of the mortgage pools.
The banking sector has already dropped some 5% today (1.7.11), showing that this ruling has sufficiently spooked investors.
It’s that time again for our annual review of hot topics and top posts for the last year, 2010.
#5. The Great Flood of 2010. Ah, who can forget the flooding in the spring of 2010. I sure remember bailing out my flooded basement every 30 minutes through the night, into exhaustion. Good times… FEMA declared a “major disaster” and the IRS granted taxpayers in 7 counties an extension to file their taxes.
#4. The Obama HAFA Short Sale Program. The Obama short sale program, announced at the end of 2009, was aimed to speed up short sales of homes and other loan modification alternatives to stem the rising tide of foreclosures. The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) provides financial incentives and simplifies the procedures for completing short sales, a growing practice in which a lender agrees to accept the sale price of a home to pay off a mortgage even if the price falls short of the amount owed. By all accounts, however, the HAFA program has been a dismal failure.
#2. Our popular primers on the Massachusetts Offer to Purchase and the standard form Purchase and Sale Agreement, checked in with over 16,000 reads. Great to see posts about buying a new home ranking so highly. An indicator of the recovery of the Massachusetts real estate market perhaps?
#1–Fannie Mae & FHA Condominium Regulations: Our series on the Fannie Mae and FHA strict new condominium lending rules were incredibly popular, combining for over 25,000 reads during 2010. The new guidelines had condominium developers and associations, buyers and sellers in a tizzy, as Fannie and FHA imposed much tougher pre-sale requirements, condominium financial guidelines and the imposition of unit owner HO-6 insurance policies, among other requirements.
Early 2011 should bring the final word from the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court on the very controversial foreclosure case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez which invalidated foreclosures across the state for sloppy paperwork. Thousands of property owners and their ownership rights to their homes hang in the balance. Click Here For Our Entire Series Of Post On the Ibanez Case.
Property Owners Need To Clear Snow & Ice After Storms
As I was slipping and sliding in the first real snow yesterday, this blog got a spike in traffic about Massachusetts snow removal law. Back when we were sunning in 80 degree weather, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of snow removal law and announced a new rule of law that all Massachusetts property owners are legally responsible for the removal of snow and ice from their property. The old rule was that owners could leave natural accumulations of snow and ice intact and escape liability for slip and falls. No longer.
Impact To Massachusetts Property Owners: Shovel Early & Often
What this change in Massachusetts snow removal law means for all property owners, both residential and commercial, is that they need to be extra vigilant after snow and ice storms, and clear areas in which the public and visitors have access–early and often. Whether a property owner takes reasonable steps in removing snow and ice will be determined by judges, juries and later cases on an individual basis. If you cannot clear the snow and ice, hire a private company to do it.
Important: speak with your insurance agent about increasing the limits of your liability coverage. I recommend Nadine Heaps at Purple Ink Insurance out of Ashland, MA.
Massachusetts Homeowner Oil Heating System Upgrade and Insurance Law(click for Fact Sheet)
By September 30, 2011, you must upgrade your home heating system equipment to prevent leaks from tanks and pipes that connect to your furnace. By making a relatively small expenditure now, you can prevent a much greater expense in the future.
The new rules:
Residential property owners of 1-4 units who heat with oil must:
Enclose fuel lines that lead to and from the tank in a continuous non-metallic sleeve, or
Install a safety valve (or other Board approved release prevention method) at the tank-end of the supply line.
Get the work done by a licensed oil burner technician, whether an independent or one employed by your oil supplier.
The law applies to both above and underground tanks and to any fuel supply or return lines in direct contact with concrete, earth, or other floor surface.
Are you exempt from the new law?
You’re exempt if:
Your oil burner is above the storage tank and the entire supply line is connected to, and is above, the top of the tank, or
A safety valve or supply line with protective sleeve was installed on or after January 1, 1990, as long as those changes comply with oil burning regulations (proved by an oil burner permit from the local fire department, or a certificate from a licensed technician).
The law does not allow for grandfathering.
Why take required preventive measures?
It makes financial and environmental sense because:
You’ll avoid the disruption and expense that can be caused by leaks.
You and your family will not be exposed to petroleum vapors in your home.
The soil or groundwater beneath your house will not be contaminated.
You won’t face a costly cleanup to restore your property—and possibly nearby property and drinking water supplies—to state environmental standards.
Cleanup costs for a “simple” leak can be as much as $15,000, but if the leak affects the groundwater, or is more extensive, costs can reach $250,000 or more.
You can be covered!
Your insurance company must now offer you oil spill coverage if you’re already in compliance with the new law or you make the modifications needed to achieve compliance. Many companies already provide coverage; others will add it for an additional premium.
Please contact Nadine Heaps at 508-881-6680 for assistance.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is regarded as one of the leading real estate attorneys in Massachusetts. With over 26 years in practice, he is a five time winner of the "Top Real Estate 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.
