For my entire series on the new 2010 RESPA rules, look to the right under “Spotlight On: RESPA Reform” or click here.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced on Friday that it will not enforce for a 120 day period new, sweeping regulatory changes to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) set to go into effect January 1, 2010. The new regulations will still go into effect on January 1, 2010, but the board overseeing enforcement of these new rules will “exercise restraint in enforcing” them. HUD wants all lenders to make a good faith effort to comply with the new regulations beginning on January 1.
The major components of the new RESPA reform are the new and substantially revised HUD-1 Settlement Statement and Good Faith Estimate (GFE) of closing costs issued by lenders, settlement agents, and closing attorneys. HUD will require that lenders and mortgage brokers provide consumers with a newly revised Good Faith Estimate (GFE) that clearly discloses key loan terms and closing costs. Closing agents will also be required to provide borrowers a new HUD-1 Settlement Statement that clearly compares consumers’ final and estimated costs.
The new RESPA rule became effective on January 16, 2009, but provided a one-year transition period for the mortgage industry to incorporate these changes. HUD will continue to work with the mortgage industry during this period, including providing a comprehensive set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on its website.
This is very good news for lenders and closing attorneys so they can take advantage of some well needed additional time to digest the new forms and procedures. I recently attended a seminar on the new RESPA changes, and they are quite a substantial change to the current GFE and HUD-1. Lenders must provide borrowers with a firm “origination charge” which must include all the various loan origination fees now separately itemized on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, including points, appraisal, credit, and application fees, administrative, lender inspection, wire, and document preparation fees. This origination fee cannot increase. Lenders also have to provide borrowers with a “firm” quote for typical closings costs, including attorneys’ fees, title insurance and recording fees, and select up to 1 preferred provider for such services. The firm quote cannot increase by more than 10% at closing. If the lender allows, borrowers can use their own providers who will not be subject at all to the firm quote requirement. The new changes will require quite a bit of coordination between lenders and closing attorneys.
Most lenders who I have spoken to are not ready for these changes. The likely impact is that for the first 4 months of 2010, borrowers could see either the current or the revised GFE and HUD-1 form, depending on whether the lender/closing attorney has implemented the changes.
With an eye on the “volatility” of the condo market, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has backed off some of the stingy new rules for condominium lending set to be implemented Dec. 7.
After a meeting with the Mortgage Bankers Association last week, the FHA made the following changes to its June 12 condominium guidance letter in a new letter dated Nov. 6:
Spot loan approvals can continue until Feb. 1, 2010.
The FHA will allow a 50 % concentration of FHA loans – up from 30 %- in condominium buildings, and well-qualified buildings can have up to 100 %.
A 50 % owner-occupancy requirement for new condo projects.
The pre-sale requirement has been reduced to 30 % of new projects.
Reserve study requirement eliminated. Condominium budget must provide for funding reserve account for at least 10% of operating budget
The original implementation date for new condo rules was Nov. 1, but that date was pushed back to Dec. 7. The above rules, except the spot loan approval, are all labeled as “temporary,” effective through Dec. 30 – although the FHA reserves the right to extend that date.
Banker and Tradesman is reporting that Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank will appeal the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Massachusetts Land Court decision that stung the lenders earlier this year by invalidating two foreclosures in Springfield because of improperly recorded mortgage assignments.
Lenders filed the appeal on Oct. 29, according to Lawrence Scofield, a senior real estate attorney at Ablitt Law Offices of Woburn, who represented the lenders in the Land Court case. Scofield said Ablitt Law Office would not handle the appeal, but would work with an unnamed “downtown law office” that will be retained to argue in Appeals Court. Scofield said the lenders, lawyers, and parties that filed amicus briefs in the Land Court will meet this week to discuss the more substantive details of the appeal. The disputed decision has raised questions in the mortgage industry regarding potentially thousands of clouded titles, as the practice of back-dating mortgage assignments had been widely used in recent years. “This is a big deal,” Scofield said. “I hope in the worst case situation, the court will recognize the public policy impact this would have, and make this prospective decision and not a retroactive decision, which could really mitigate some of the collateral damage.”
My prior posts on this very important and far-reaching decision can be found here.
If the appeal takes the typical course in the Appeals Court, a decision may not come for up to one year. Given the importance of the decision, I had originally predicted that the lenders would file a direct appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the highest appellate court in the state. There’s no indication that the case is going up to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Just go to Google Maps and type in a city/town or street address. On the “More” pull down menu on the right side, there is a box for real estate. Check the box and real estate listings will populate on the map. You can click on each listing for more information and a link to the listing broker. You can also refine your real estate search by for sale, for rent, foreclosure, bedroom/bath, and square footage on the left sidebar.
For all my realtor friends who are wondering how to take advantage of this powerful tool, the answer is that your listings via your personal or company website need to be syndicated to Google. Here are a few how to articles:
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley today announced that her office has settled 20 cases against landlords and real estate agents accused of violating state anti-discrimination laws across Massachusetts. The companies allegedly made discriminatory statements in online rental advertisements on Craigslist.org which stated “no children” or “no Section 8.” Section 8 is a rental subsidy program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under Massachusetts law, landlords and realtors cannot refuse to rent to families with children under the lead paint law or because someone receives a housing subsidy to aid in paying their rent. Both the settlements and lawsuits came as part of a statewide investigation into reports of widespread discriminatory internet advertising. The case involved properties in Suffolk, Middlesex, Norfolk, Essex, Bristol, Plymouth, and Hampden counties.
Housing discrimination is a serious problem in Massachusetts. Particularly as more families face tough financial times and have no choice but to rent, landlords and real estate professionals must recognize that the rental market is a regulated industry and compliance with our anti-discrimination laws is among their most important obligations, Coakley said. While we hope that this enforcement initiative will have a deterrent effect, our office will continue to monitor Craigslist and take action against persons and entities that violate the law.
The property owners and real estate agents are collectively required to pay Massachusetts $18,250 with $8,750 suspended pending compliance with the agreements. They must also attend trainings on state and federal fair housing laws and remove lead paint hazards from rental units. The defendants are also required by the agreement to advertise any future rental property as “Equal Housing Opportunity” properties, to maintain a record of rental applicants submitted by prospective tenants and to to report all discrimination complaints received to the attorney general’s office. The defendants will also place more than 60 postings on Craigslist to inform the website’s uses that the attorney general monitors the site for discriminatory advertising and that it is against Massachusetts law to state a discriminatory preference against families with children or against recipients of housing assistance subsidies.
We’ll have to file this one under “I told you so!” In my prior post, Massachusetts Landlord Tenant Law: A Legal Refresher Course For Landlords, I warned landlords about the consequences of an illegal policy of refusing to rent to families with children or to tenants receiving federal or state rent subsidies. I’m disappointed these landlords are apparently not avid readers of the Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog!
Rona Fischman, a buyer’s agent and co-author of Boston.com’s Real Estate Now Blog asked me to answer a couple of questions regarding condominiums on her Boston.com blog which I’ve reprinted here:
Is an individual unit owner liable if someone gets hurt in the condominium’s common areas?
The answer is most likely not. This is good lead in to the concept of “common areas.” When someone buys a condominium unit, they also obtain an undivided share of the condominium’s common areas and facilities. Common areas typically include obvious things such as building entrances and exits, lobbies, interior stairways, pools and workout rooms. They also include not so obvious areas such as the space between adjoining units, telecommunication wires, and the roof. As outlined in the “master deed,” each unit owner “owns” an undivided share (expressed as a percentage) of all the common areas. But the condominium association has responsibility over managing and maintaining the common areas. Recognizing that unit owners have very little control over common areas, the Massachusetts Condominium Act provides that only the condominium association can be sued for claims related to common areas. The condominium association should have a master liability insurance policy in place in case anyone gets injured on common area property. If however, the claim is so substantial that all common funds, property and insurance proceeds have been exhausted to pay the claim, individual unit owners could be held liable for the balance due, if any, but only up to their respective percentage interest in the condominium. Now, if your unit has a private deck or porch (which is not a common area) with a faulty railing, you could be held responsible if someone fell. For all these reasons, unit owners should absolutely obtain an “HO-6” policy for their own liability and an umbrella policy on top of that.
I own a condominium unit and rent it out to students. Am I responsible for my tenant’s noise and disturbance problems?
The answer is yes. While a precise response would depend on the provisions of the condominium’s bylaws, typically, a unit owner is responsible for the actions of tenants. Most often, a condominium’s bylaws and house rules are binding on unit owners, resident family members and tenants. If a tenant violates a house rule — by making excessive noise — the unit owner is responsible for all consequences. The condominium association can require the unit owner to evict the tenant; if the unit owner fails or refuses, the condominium association may be able to take separate legal action against the owner and levy stiff fines. If the bylaws provide, the unit owner may be responsible for reimbursing the condo for legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with his tenant’s eviction. Disgruntled unit owners can also pursue “nuisance” claims against unit owners who rent to noisy tenants. This is a tricky issue with an absentee unit owner who cannot verify the nature of the complaints. Surely, however, renting to noisy tenants will earn you no favors with your fellow unit owners.
Condominium Living 101
My advice to folks considering purchasing a condominium is to recognize that you are buying into a rather unique form of ownership and community. You will be giving up certain rights taken for granted in single family dwelling life — the right to absolute silence, privacy, and control over all aspects of the property — in exchange for perhaps more amenities, convenience, less maintenance, and better location and price. In some cases, you will also be entering into the uniquely democratic (or in some condos, totalitarian) form of governance, rife with politics, fighting and name-calling–think that Seinfeld episode down at the Del Boca Vista Condos. But seriously, the majority of condominiums are well run. But before you buy, it’s imperative that you and your real estate attorney thoroughly review the condominium documents and budget to ensure you’re not buying into a Seinfeld-esque nightmare.
The FHA has announced that it will again delay the implementation of the new regulations governing condominium mortgages until December 7th, 2009. The new regulations were initially proposed in June and would change the approval process and the criteria used to determine if a buyer can obtain a FHA mortgage on a condominium. The proposal would replace the current spot approval process with a new comprehensive approval process under which approvals would be good for two years.
On October 21st, FHA stated in an email:
Implementation of FHA’s new policy guidance for condominium project approval and condo unit financing will be delayed until December 7th 2009. The new guidance, to be issued within the next two weeks, will: 1) offer additional leniencies to address the difficult market conditions and 2) augment some portions of FHA Mortgagee Letter 2009-19, providing additional information and clarification.
Until the new guidance takes effect on December 7th, 2009 lenders may continue to use the Spot Loan Approval guidance issued in Mortgagee Letter 1996-41. Further, the site condo and manufactured housing condo project changes that have already been implemented are not affected by this delay.
See my prior post for a comprehensive review of the changes.
There has been a frenzied lobbying effort by condominium groups led by the Community Associations Institute and lenders to suggest ways to improve the proposed regulations in a manner that would both mitigate FHA exposure to bad mortgage debt and set realistic benchmarks for condominium associations to qualify for project approval under FHA financing mechanisms. The FHA’s delay may be attributed to sorting through all the concerns about the new, stricter guidelines.
There’s a bill (House Bill No. 1584) currently pending this legislative session to update the Massachusetts Homestead Law which would provide additional financial protections to homeowners and consumers in Massachusetts.
A Massachusetts homestead declaration is a simple and inexpensive tool enabling homeowners to protect up to $500,000 of equity in their principal residence from the majority of creditors. The mechanism is relatively simple. All that is required is the preparation and recording of a Declaration of Homestead with the applicable Registry of Deeds and the payment of a state mandated recording fee. The total cost is typically around $100 to prepare and record the instrument.
The Homestead Exemption provides protection and security to homeowners, eliminating the threat that the equity in their principal residence could be exposed to satisfy common unsecured debts or obligations.
Many feel that the Homestead Law (M.G.L. c. 188 §1, et seq.) is greatly in need of modernization. If ultimately passed, this homestead bill will have a significant impact in favor of Massachusetts consumers and homeowners who run into financial difficulty.
Here’s a summary of the changes:
There will be automatic homestead protection, without the need for recording a declaration, of up to $125,000 in equity, which amount corresponds to some of the limitations on homestead exemptions enacted in 2005 in the Federal Bankruptcy Code as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”). Individuals and families with more equity in their homes will still have a significant incentive to record a standard declaration to protect up to $500,000 of their equity (the amount of the declared exemption under current law).
Beneficiaries of trusts are entitled to homestead protection
Mortgages cannot terminate previously filed homesteads – instead, any provision in a mortgage that purports to terminate a homestead is deemed merely to subordinate the homestead to such mortgage
Proceeds from the sale of a home, or insurance proceeds, are entitled to homestead protection (for up to a year for sale proceeds, and two years for insurance proceeds)
Transfers among family members will not terminate a previously declared homestead – even if the homestead isn’t reserved in the deed
Manufactured homes are eligible for protection under all provisions of the statute
We always highly recommend that our buyer clients record a homestead on their principal residence if they have not done so already. The new law will protect those who don’t (up to $125,000), but will provide even more incentive for those who do.
A short sale is special type of real estate transaction between a homeowner, his mortgage holder, and a third party buyer. In a short sale, the homeowner’s mortgage company agrees to take less than what is owed on the outstanding mortgage, thereby being left “short.” In some but not all cases, the lender will agree to wipe out the entire debt. Many people believe that short sales offer bargain basement prices, but lenders will do their best to get as close to fair market value as possible so as to minimize their loss.
Short sales are a unique type of transaction and far different from the typical transaction between parties of equal bargaining power. Likewise, the legal aspects of a short sale are unique.
Short Sale Approval Required
The most important legal issue in a Massachusetts short sale is to recognize that the deal doesn’t go through unless the seller’s lender(s) approve the short sale. Thus, the offer and purchase and sale agreement must reflect that the buyer’s and seller’s obligation to close is contingent upon the lender’s approval of the short sale.
Sometimes, sellers need to obtain short sale approval from not one, but two, lenders with mortgages on the property. Buyers and their agents should research the title ahead of time because a second lienholder can often muck up an otherwise promising short sale.
The Waiting Game
Another significant issue is timing. The typical time-line on a short sale can vary greatly from 45 days to 6 months or more from accepted offer to closing. The approval of a short sale and the negotiation for the reduction in the mortgage balance can be a time-consuming process. There is a long, but manageable, list of documents that must be submitted by the seller/homeowner before a lender will approve a short sale.
Inspections and Financing
Short sale transactions don’t follow the typical process of the “normal” transaction, especially with financing and inspection contingencies. Due to the often lengthy wait for short sale approval, most buyers are reluctant to lock in mortgage financing and otherwise spend to secure a firm loan commitment. The same is true for home inspections. Buyers argue why should I pay for a home inspection if the deal may not even happen? Sellers and their agents often feel that buyers should put a little “skin in the game” and do a home inspection early on. These issues will be negotiated from deal to deal.
When I represent buyers of short sales, I insist that the the closing, inspection, and mortgage contingency deadlines dates in the offer and purchase and sale agreement start “x” days from the short sale approval. There should also be a end date for obtaining short sale approval and protection for the buyer’s rate lock so the agreement is not left completely open-ended and delays won’t adversely affect the buyer’s financing.
Short Sale Addendum/Rider
The deal agreements must be tailored quite specifically to a short sale transaction. Experienced Massachusetts short sale attorneys (like us!) always use a customized short sale addendum/rider. A form, however, is no substitute for an experienced short sale attorney and guidance through the complicated short sale process.
Buyers Bring Your Tools
Also, cash strapped sellers are usually unwilling to do any repairs in a short sale situation. Inspections may be performed and “outs” may be negotiated for significant repairs, but most buyers must ultimately accept the property “as is.”
Given the unique nature of the Massachusetts short sale transaction, the sage advice is to work with ethical Realtors and short sale attorneys who have significant experience with short sale transactions.
I’m pleased to welcome Noel Sior-Woodard, IIDA, the President of Woodard Interiors, Inc. – a commercial interior design firm located in Grafton, MA. Noel is writing about pending legislation in Massachusetts which will officially recognize the profession and enable interior designers to bid on lucrative state contracts. Noel recently testified before the State Legislature in favor of this important bill.
Interior Designers Do More Than You May Think
Interior designers make decisions everyday that affect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. They lay out floor plans that comply with all of the relevant building, life safety, and accessibility codes so that all occupants can quickly and safely exit from the building in case of an emergency. Designers select and specify interior finish materials for public spaces that are the approved fire rating according to code. They select and specify interior finish materials in health care facilities that are appropriate for protecting both the patient and staff against unnecessary infections. Interior designers bring colors and patterns together that do not confuse or irritate those affected by mental disabilities. They specify the correct lighting levels so that the elderly are able to walk down a corridor of an assisted living facility safely. They design ergonomic office environments for employees to work in. The work of an interior designer may not always be recognized for all of the research that goes into creating the design – but that is the whole point of hiring a professional interior designer. To create a space that meets all codes while designing an environment that the general public only sees as being beautiful – that is the job of a successful interior designer.
Pending Massachusetts Legislation Enabling Interior Designer To Bid On State Contracts
Currently, House Bill 2999 – an Act recognizing the profession of interior designers to bid on State contracts — is in front of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. Passage of HB 2999 would allow professional interior designers in Massachusetts to bid on State contracts that are relevant to interior design services as the prime consultant. Currently all State interior design projects are awarded to architects and engineers. Unfortunately, Massachusetts does not recognize the profession of interior design. Interior designers within our state are currently not able to bid as the prime consultant on State work. Enactment of the bill would put Massachusetts in line with many other states and the Federal government where professional interior designers are allowed to bid as the prime consultant and which recognize the profession of interior design.
There is also currently another bill that has been filed during this legislative session in support of interior design legislation. House Bill 262 – an Act relative to the certification of interior designers – would allow professional interior designers to be registered with the Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure. In order to become a “certified interior designer” in Massachusetts interior designers will have to meet all of the education, experience, and examination requirements that the Commonwealth establishes.
Twenty four states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have either interior design practice acts or title acts. House Bill 262 would establish standards of minimum competency for the use of the title “certified interior designer” within the Commonwealth.
Please join me in supporting Noel and our local interior designers to support this legislation. Allowing interior designers to be certified and bid on state contracts ensures that they are not blocked from the marketplace, and will ultimately protect consumers by requiring uniform standards and competency levels for all such professionals.
Today, Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirmed his controversial ruling made back in March 2009 that invalidated foreclosure proceedings involving two Springfield homes because the lenders did not hold clear titles to the properties at the time of sale. A copy of the decision can be found here.
As I outlined in my prior post on this case, the problem the Land Court dealt with in this case is what happens when modern securitized mortgage lending practices meets outdated foreclosure laws. When mortgages are packaged to Wall Street investors, the ownership of a mortgage loan may be divided and freely transferred numerous times on the lenders’ books. But the mortgage loan documentation actually on file at the Registry of Deeds often lags far behind.
Here is a diagram of the securitized mortgage process (click to enlarge):
The Ruling
Judge Long ruled that foreclosures were invalid when the lender failed to bring the ownership documentation (known as an assignment) up-to-date until after the foreclosure sale had already taken place. An assignment is a legal document confirming that a mortgage loan has been transferred from one lender to another. Assignments must be recorded with a registry of deeds so anyone researching a property’s title can track the loan’s origin and ownership. Oftentimes, as in the Ibanez case, lenders will sell bundles of loan and record backdated assignments with an effective date before the first foreclosure notice. Judge Long effectively prohibited this practice.
Despite the lender’s attempt to convince him otherwise, Judge Long came out (again) in favor of consumers:
The issues in this case are not merely problems with paperwork or a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers by the Massachusetts legislature. To accept the plaintiffs’ arguments is to allow them to take someone’s home without any demonstrable right to do so, based upon the assumption that they ultimately will be able to show that they have that right and the further assumption that potential bidders will be undeterred by the lack of a demonstrable legal foundation for the sale and will nonetheless bid full value in the expectation that that foundation will ultimately be produced, even if it takes a year or more. The law recognizes the troubling nature of these assumptions, the harm caused if those assumptions prove erroneous, and commands otherwise.
Judge Long also had some choice words for lenders:
[T]he problem the [lenders] face (the present title defect) is entirely of their own making as a result of their failure to comply with the statute and the directives in their own securitization documents… What the plaintiffs truly seek is a change in the foreclosure sale statute (G.L. c. 244, § 14), which can only come from the legislature.
What Now?
That’s a good question and one not readily answerable. To be sure, the current state of flux and confusion surrounding foreclosure titles affected by an Ibanez issue will remain intact until an appellate court considers the case or some action by the Legislature (which may be unlikely). Given the importance of the decision, I predict that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will take the unusual step of taking the case directly from the Land Court.
As for what happens in the year or so the case may be in appellate limbo, I asked an in house counsel for a leading title insurance company, and his response was essentially that it’s going to take a fair amount of time and research to figure this one out. If there’s an existing title insurance policy on the property, some but not all of the title companies may be willing to insure over the problem. If there’s no title policy in place, affected parties are going to have to ride this one out for awhile.
Once title insurance companies offer some further guidance, I will post it here.
My Two Cents
While I see both sides of the argument, the decision is troubling to me because Judge Long gave short shrift to the fundamental legal principle that the mortgage follows the note. A valid mortgage is security for some type of underlying obligation, whether it’s a loan or the promise to do something in the future. There’s no question that the millions (or billions) of dollars in loans secured by all these mortgages were validly transferred from one bank/lender to securitized lenders. The money was lent and it didn’t just evaporate into the ether. If the lenders can ultimately demonstrate ownership of the underlying loan which follows the mortgage and produce a valid assignment (albeit late), why isn’t this enough? The borrowers owe the money, and now after this ruling they are immunized from foreclosure by what many folks in the real estate industry view as elevating form over substance.
“For many years, real estate attorneys in Massachusetts have understood that the assignment of a mortgage can be recorded at any time and be effective,” Christopher S. Pitt, chairman of the Title Standards Committee of the Real Estate Bar Association tells Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Now that doesn’t mean lenders don’t need to get their act together. They do. The net effect of this decision will be that lenders must get loan documentation up to date and recorded promptly. Indeed, the Ibanez loan changed ownership at least four times prior to foreclosure — without any of this appearing on the public record. Two of those entities (Lehman Brothers and its subsidiary) are currently in bankruptcy and a third (Option One) has ceased operations. This is a huge wake up call to the securitized lending industry.
But the question remains, what about all the foreclosures that have already been conducted? And the new homeowners who own these properties and are now saddled with unresolvable title defects? What about these “innocent victims” and the neighborhoods blighted by foreclosed properties which cannot be sold? I guess we can all blame Wall Street once again…
This case has the potential to do a lot of damage (or rather reveal the damage that foreclosing lenders did over the past few years), but I think Judge Long was completely right about the law. Both the statute and all of the securitization documents were clear, and these foreclosures violated both of them. These banks had sophisticated lawyers who knew real estate law when they planned to securitize these loans, but they never bothered to consult their own agreements when the time came to actually securitize, or foreclose, on the loans. As a result, mortgages were never properly transferred, and the foreclosing lenders never had the right to foreclose.
As with any controversial legal decision, there’s always compelling arguments for both points of view.
Boston Globe reporter Jenifer McKim today is reporting that Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long’s much anticipated ruling in the Ibanez v. U.S. Bank case, which invalidated thousands of foreclosures across the state, could come as early as today.
Previously, in late March of this year Judge Long issued one of the most controversial rulings in recent years which has called into question hundreds if not thousands of foreclosure titles because lenders failed to show proof they held titles to the properties through valid assignments. Click here for my prior post on the case. A copy of the case can be found here.
The Globe reports that the decision is “imminent” and could come as early as today. The Globe also has interesting commentary from a number of affected sources:
Among those watching the case are Boston city officials, who say they hope Long will clarify title issues for homes that have already gone into foreclosure. In the meantime, the judge’s actions have stymied the city’s effort to buy as many as 20 bank-owned properties, hurting much-needed redevelopment efforts in neighborhoods plagued by foreclosure, officials said.
“There are thousands and thousands of titles that have gone through foreclosures with these late filed’’ ownership records, said Lawrence Scofield, an attorney with Ablitt Law Offices in Woburn, who represented plaintiffs in three consolidated Springfield cases ruled on by Long. “Judge Long is saying you don’t really own it. That is the real, overwhelming, economic effect.’’
Locally, the Massachusetts decision has pitted advocates trying to revive neighborhoods against others trying to help homeowners stave off foreclosures. Gary Klein, a consumer law attorney who filed a friend of the court brief in the case, said the real estate system placed “expedience and convenience’’ before the law. Providing home buyers with a “full set of procedural protections,’’ he said, is more important than comforting lenders who ignored the law.
Indeed, since March, the number of foreclosure deeds has slowed, according to Warren Group, a Boston company that provides real estate data. “There are probably at least a thousand families who are getting at least some period of temporary delay while lenders go back and get a proper paper trail,’’ said Klein, an attorney with the Boston-based law firm Roddy, Klein and Ryan. “Slowing foreclosures down allows people to get loan modifications and other relief.’’
Once the decision is released I will post it here with my analysis and commentary.
Under revised guidelines which were to be effective October 1, 2009 but now delayed until November 2, 2009, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is implementing a new stricter approval process for condominiums to be eligible for FHA financing. The guidelines are very similar to the new Fannie Mae regulations issued earlier in the year. Some “highlights” of the new regulations include that all FHA approved condominium projects have at least a 50% level of owner occupancy or sell out, no more than a 15% condo fee delinquency rate and a capital reserve study, among other requirements. There is also a little known requirement for an affirmative action housing plan for new construction and conversions. The FHA guidelines will surely slow down condominium mortgage financing, and negatively impact first time home buyers’ ability to obtain FHA mortgages for condominium units.
For those who don’t know, FHA is a government program designed to help more people buy homes, and more borrowers will qualify with FHA financing than with conventional. It is a low down payment (3.5% down) program and the credit standards are much looser. The mortgage rates are typically better, as well.
To obtain a FHA mortgage on a condominium, the project must be FHA approved. Prior to these changes, there were two ways a condominium could be FHA approved: (1) full project approval, and (2) “spot” approval. Full project approval means that FHA has already done the approval on the entire condominium. Spot approvals were performed on non-FHA approved projects on a loan by loan basis, and were a way to make FHA loans available to home buyers in well run condo projects even if they haven’t gone through the full approval process.
No More Spot Approvals
Under the new guidelines, the popular spot approval process will no longer be available and will be replaced with an entirely new process called Direct Endorsement Lender Review and Approval Process (DELRA). FHA claims the DELRA process is more uniform and streamlined that the former spot loan approval process, but that remains to be seen. The good thing is that lenders will retain the ability, like the former spot approval process, to underwrite FHA loans on non-FHA approved projects, albeit with tighter guidelines.
The new regulations also limit the duration of full project approvals to two years. Thus, even approved condominiums must re-certify every 2 years.
New Project Eligibility Guidelines
Under the new project eligibility requirements, all condominiums (consisting of 2 or more units) must meet the following requirements:
At least 50% of the units of a project must be owner-occupied or sold to owners who intend to occupy the units. For proposed, under construction or projects still in their initial marketing phase, FHA will allow a minimum owner occupancy amount equal to 50 % of the number of presold units (the minimum pre-sale requirement of 50 percent still applies).
Projects must be covered by hazard and liability insurance and, when applicable, flood insurance.
At least 50% of the total units must be sold prior to endorsement of any mortgage on a unit. Valid pre-sales include an executed sales agreement and evidence that a lender is willing to make the loan.
No more than 15% of the total units can be in arrears (more than 30 days past due) of their condominium association fee payment.
No more than 25% of the property’s total floor area in a project can be used for commercial purposes. The commercial portion of the project must be of a nature that is homogeneous with residential use, which is free of adverse conditions to the occupants of the individual condominium units.
Reserve Study – a current reserve study must be performed to assure that adequate funds are available for the funding of capital expenditures and maintenance. A current reserve study must be no more than 12 months old – if recent events or market conditions have affected the finished condition of the property that information must be included. When reviewing the reserve study, consideration must be given to items that have been replaced after the time that the reserve study was completed. The regulations fail to define what is “adequate,” however, guidance may be found in the new Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac condominium guidelines which mandate at least 10% of annual operating budget in reserves.
No more than 10% of the units may be owned by one investor. This will apply to developers/builders that subsequently rent vacant and unsold units. For two and three unit condominium projects, no single entity may own more than one unit within the project; all units, common elements, and facilities within the project must be 100% complete; and only one unit can be conveyed to non-owner occupants.
Rights of first refusal are permitted unless they violate discriminatory conduct under the Fair Housing Act.
Buried in the fine print is a requirement for an affirmative action-type housing plan. For both new construction and conversions, if the developer intends to market 5 or more units within the next 12 months with FHA mortgage insurance, an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) or a Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreement (VAMA) must be in place. An affirmative fair housing marketing plan requires that the racial, socioeconomic, and ethnic composition of the condominium residents closely mirror that of the neighboring area, to the greatest extent possible. Most new condominiums don’t have these in place.
Click here for the new FHA condominium guidelines. You can look to see whether a condominium is approved on the HUD Homes & Communities website located here. Here is the FHA Condominium Mortgage webpage.
The Impact: More Work For Lenders, Condominium Associations/Managers And Attorneys
I expect FHA lenders will approach condominium association boards and managers, asking for certain information, certifications, and even legal opinions regarding compliance with FHA (and Fannie Mae) legal requirements. If a condominium is not on the FHA-approved list, or has lost its approval, condominium associations should consider applying for approval (or re-approval). Reportedly, FHA/HUD is backlogged a month or more in reviewing submitted applications. Thus, should your condominium need to be submitted for approval, keep in mind the process may take some time. Also keep in mind that the work to compile and complete the application package itself can take weeks, and require the board, its manager, and legal counsel to gather data, documents, and expert opinions required for FHA approval. The package of materials that must be submitted can vary from condominium to condominium, and often requires an updated reserve study and certain legal opinions.
Our office is well equipped to assist lenders and buyers with FHA loan compliance issues as we have recently issued opinion letters and certifications under the similar Fannie Mae condominium regulations. Contact [email protected] for more information.
An excited young couple about to close on their first home walk into into the closing attorney’s office. The day before they received via secure email all of the loan documents to review and approve with their personal attorney. The closing attorney arrives without any paper, armed only with a laptop attached to a digital signature pad. The sellers are not present as they have already signed the deed and other documents electronically the day before over the secure electronic closing system. The couple quickly review the closing documents on the attorneys’ laptop, clicking an “I Agree” button acknowledging receipt and review of each document. The couple sign the digital signature pad, and the captured signatures are automatically applied to all of the signature blocks of the documents. The closing attorney electronically notarizes all documents requiring witnessing or notarization. The closing is over in 15 minutes, and the couple walks out with a CD-ROM containing all the signed closing documents and the keys to their new home. The closing attorney then electronically records the deed and mortgage with the registry of deeds, funds the loan, and makes all of the disbursements. The executed loan documents are then electronically transmitted to the lender and digitally archived.
This is not an imaginary scenario. Electronic closings (e-closings) are happening now, and they are the future of real estate conveyancing. I believe that electronic closings will change the way lenders, title companies and closing attorneys do business.
The advantages of an e-closing system are numerous and include:
More convenient and efficient closing process for home buyers and sellers.
Automated delivery of electronically signed loan documents directly to post closing – eliminating costs and time. Fund the loans faster, in as little as 48 hours.
Drastically improve the efficiency of real estate transactions with reduced contract-to-closing times.
The Green Factor: Eliminates thousands of paper documents. Buyers receive the entire signed closing package on CD.
Reduce shipping and closing costs.
Electronic closings are very slowly moving into Massachusetts. (Attorneys, who must conduct most real estate closings in Massachusetts, are notorious late adopters of new technology). Since July, without much fanfare, the Middlesex Registry of Deeds in Cambridge, Hampden County Registry in Springfield, and Plymouth Registry of Deeds have adopted electronic recording capabilities. Hopefully, the other registries follow suit.
Electronic closings are a great selling point to customers mortgage lenders, banks and credit unions. Here is a recent article about a credit union in Michigan successfully offering electronic closings.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that a landlord was liable for breaching the implied warranty of habitability when a tenant’s guest seriously injured himself falling from a defective porch. The case is Scott v. Garfield, and can be found here.
What’s the Implied Warranty of Habitability?
The implied warranty of habitability is a multi-faceted legal concept that encompasses contract and tort principles, as well as the State building and sanitary codes. It imposes a legal duty on a residential landlord, in the form of an implied agreement, to ensure that a rental unit complies with the State building and sanitary codes throughout the term of the lease. If a tenant is injured due to the premises being in violation of code, the landlord can be held liable under the implied warranty of habitability. The implied warranty cannot be waived by a lease provision.
The Decision: Extending the Doctrine
In Scott v. Garfield, the SJC extended the reach of the doctrine from tenants to the guests and lawful visitors of any tenant. The injured victim in the Scott case was a friend of the tenant helping out with a move when a defective second story porch railing gave way, sending him falling and seriously injuring his shoulder. The Court upheld a $450,000 jury verdict in the victim’s favor. The Court reasoned:
Our conclusion that lawful visitors, like tenants, may recover for personal injuries caused by breach of the implied warranty of habitability rests, in part, on the expectation that a tenant might invite a guest into his home, and the concomitant expectation that the tenant’s home must be safe for a guest to visit — which together go to the very heart of the landlord’s contractual obligation to deliver and maintain habitable premises that comply with the building and sanitary codes.
OK, So What?
Whether the implied warranty of habitability is in play in a personal injury case makes a huge difference. Personal injury attorneys love the implied warranty of habitability because the defense of comparative negligence is unavailable, unlike a straight-forward claim for negligence. The comparative negligence defense enables a jury to attribute fault to each party in a personal injury case and reduce liability accordingly. This was a factor in the Scott case as the injured guest had been drinking a few beers during the move, and the jury found him 20% at fault, which would have reduced his verdict by $90,000. (How a couple beers impacted the rotting porch is beyond me, I guess he leaned to hard–juries never cease to amaze me). The verdict remained intact, however, because the jury also found that the landlord had violated the implied warranty of habitability. Thus, in cases where the implied warranty is in play, landlords have one hand tied behind their backs as they can’t point the finger at the plaintiff.
Take-Away: Check Your Porches and Your Liability Insurance
This case is yet another harsh reminder that all landlords must not only check their porches, stairways and railing for defects, but procure general liability insurance with sufficient coverage on rental property. I recommend at least $1 Million/person $2 Million/aggregate which would have covered this verdict entirely, plus paid for the attorneys. Another way to limit risk is to get title to residential rental property out of landlords’ personal names and into a new limited liability company or other corporate entity (not a nominee trust).
This decision is not a surprise in light of the court’s prior decisions eliminating old common law rules of liability for different types of people on property (i.e., tenants, guests, invitees, etc.–notably, trespassers remain a category not entitled to added protection). Given the significance of the case and the fact that it went up to the SJC, the landlord in Scott had liability insurance which covered this verdict and the appeal. But if you’re an uninsured landlord on the wrong side of one of these cases, you got a big check to write or a bankruptcy attorney to see.
Apparently for the first time, a Massachusetts trial judge has used a newly decided corporate successor liability theory to hold a newly formed company responsible for the debts of its predecessor, yielding a $2 million judgment for back rent and interest. The plaintiff in the case, Renaissance Worldwide, had leased space to Sitara Networks, a voice-over-Internet (VOIP) company, in a Waltham building. Sitara arranged for a creditor to foreclose on its assets and then bought them back, reopening as a new entity, Converged Access. Converged claimed that it should not be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent and interest owed by Sitara.
Superior Court Judge Bruce R. Henry said “not so fast,” and ruled that Sitara’s plan to reemerge as Converged Access was improperly designed to shed the company’s unsecured debt, scrubbing the books clean with the transaction. He ordered Converged Access to pay a whopping $1.2 million in back rent plus $800,000 in interest and attorneys’ fees. Judge Henry’s ruling is reportedly the first major decision relying on a year old Milliken decision from the Massachusetts highest court on corporate successor liability. The judge wrote:
“That plan causes me the same concerns as did the similar plan of the defendant in the Milliken case,” Henry wrote. “As the Supreme Judicial Court found in Milliken, ‘Notwithstanding our respect for the integrity of corporate structures, we are troubled by the notion that by merely changing its form, without significantly changing its substance, a single corporation can wholly shed its debts to unsecured creditors, continue its business operations with an eye toward returning to profitability, and have no further obligation to pay such creditors.'”
A Young Company Pursues VOIP Technology But Runs Into Trouble
Sitara, the young company was pursuing voice-over-Internet protocol technology – or VoIP – which essentially allows phone service to work over the Internet. In April 2002, Sitara stopped paying its rent and began talking to Renaissance, the landlord, about renegotiating the lease, but the two never reached a revised agreement. Sitara failed to pay the rent over the next 15 months, accumulating a $1.2 million debt. (Why the landlord let the rent accrue this much is beyond me).
Meanwhile, it owed Lighthouse Capital Partners, a secured creditor, $1.1 million. In 2004, Sitara began working with Argus Management Corp., a consulting firm that specializes in helping distressed companies. Argus tried to negotiate a reduced rent, but the two sides never agreed to terms. In April 2004, one of Sitara’s founders, Malik Khan, sent an e-mail to some colleagues discussing the rent negotiations with Renaissance and outlining several options, including selling the company to Lighthouse and buying the assets back. “We hand the keys to Lighthouse and then purchase the assets back from them,” he wrote. “We have spent time working this last option out with Argus, who have much more experience at this than we do. … Financially, this is a better deal for all of us but more complicated.” In a later e-mail to an investor, Khan spelled out the plan in greater detail: Lighthouse would take over the assets and a new company would buy them, getting “Sitara’s current business, assets, IP, brand names, trade marks and copyrights, with no debt on its balance sheet.” And he noted that, if done “expeditiously,” there would be “a seamless transition from employees, customers and the market, with minimal disruption to business.”
Not So Fast Says The Judge
After several years of litigation, the Judge ruled in a jury waived trial that the plan “engineered by Khan with assistance from Argus and the cooperation of Lighthouse was designed to permit Sitara to continue its business, albeit with a new name, and to shed its unsecured debt.” He ordered the defendants to pay $1.2 million in rent plus roughly $800,000 in interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, which have not yet been calculated.
Take Away
The take-away from this case is think twice before you engage in an end-game corporate foreclosure strategy under which a new related corporate entity is formed to “cleanse” the debts of the predecessor insolvent company. This applies not only in the real estate leasing context but for all types of corporate debt situations. With the economy still recovering, I would expect to see more of these “loan-to-own” successor liability cases as companies squeezed by the credit crunch look to get rid of debt while avoiding the longer, more expensive bankruptcy process. There is still much distressed corporate debt out there and otherwise sound companies that are victims of the credit crisis.
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to write about commercial leasing and this new case which just came down provided a great opportunity. The case, Renaissance Worldwide Inc. v. Converged Access Inc., can be read here.
The first step in purchasing or selling Massachusetts residential real estate is the presentation and acceptance of an Offer To Purchase. Most often, the buyers’ real estate broker prepares the offer to purchase on a pre-printed Greater Boston Real Estate Board standard form and presents it to the seller for review, modification, and acceptance. Attorneys are often not involved in the offer stage. However, in light of the legal significance of a signed offer and recent litigation over offers, buyers (and their brokers) and sellers may be wise to consult an attorney to review the offer.
An Accepted & Signed Offer Is A Binding Contract
Many sellers (and their brokers) are under the misconception that the offer to purchase is merely a formality, and that a binding contract is formed only when the parties sign the more extensive purchase and sale agreement. This is not true. Under established Massachusetts case law, a signed standard form offer to purchase is a binding and enforceable contract to sell real estate even if the offer is subject to the signing of a more comprehensive purchase and sale agreement. So if a seller signs and accepts an offer and later gets a better deal, I wouldn’t advise the seller to attempt to walk away from the original deal. Armed with a signed offer, buyers can sue for specific performance, and record a “lis pendens,” or notice of claim, in the registry of deeds against the property which will effectively prevent its sale until the litigation is resolved. I’ve handled many of these types of cases, and buyers definitely have the upper hand given the current state of the law.
There have also been recent court rulings holding that both email and text may constitute an enforceable contract even where no formal offer has been signed by both parties.
In some cases, the seller may not desire to be contractually bound by the acceptance of an offer to purchase while their property is taken off the market. In that case, safe harbor language can be drafted to specify the limited nature of the obligations created by the accepted offer. This is rather unusual, however, in residential transactions.
Home Inspection & Mortgage Contingencies
With the offer to purchase, I always advise buyers and their brokers to use a standard form addendum to address such contingencies as mortgage financing, home inspection, radon, lead paint, and pests. The home inspection and related tests are typically completed before the purchase and sale agreement is signed and any inspection issues are dealt with in the purchase and sale agreement. If they are not, there is an inspection contingency added to the P&S. See my post on purchase and sales agreements for that discussion.
The mortgage contingency is likewise critical. With mortgage loans harder to underwrite and approve, we are seeing loan commitment deadlines extended out for at least 30-45 days from the signing of the purchase and sale agreement. Always consult your mortgage lender before making an offer to see how much time they will need to process and approval your loan. The loan commitment deadline is one, if not the most, important deadlines in the contract documents.
In order to help finance the acquisition of said premises, the BUYER shall apply for a conventional bank or other institutional mortgage loan of $[proposed loan amount] at prevailing rates, terms and conditions. If despite the BUYER’S diligent efforts, a commitment for such a loan cannot be obtained on or before [30-45 days from signing of purchase-sale agreement], the BUYER may terminate this agreement by written notice to the SELLER in accordance with the term of the rider, prior to the expiration of such time, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreements shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto. In no event will the BUYER be deemed to have used diligent efforts to obtain such commitment unless the BUYER submits a complete mortgage loan application conforming to the foregoing provisions on or before [2-5 business days from signing of purchase and sale agreement].
Any time the parties agree to an extension of any deadline in the offer (and the purchase and sale agreement for that matter) make sure it’s in writing.
Now that time is running out on the First Time Home Buyer Credit–what I call the Realtor Cash For Clunkers program — I came across this comically shameless video produced by one of America’s largest real estate brokerage companies.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2leBqxcwhvI]
But seriously folks, the credit seems like a good idea, but filled with exceptions. From what I can decipher, the basics of how you qualify for the credit are:
First-time buyer refers to anyone who has not owned a principle residence in the past three years.
Non-married buyers qualify as long as one person meets the first-time buyer definition. Married tax payers must both be first-timers to qualify.
The tax credit is equal to 10% of the purchase price, up to a maximum of 8,000 dollars.
The home must be purchased between January 01, 2009 and December 01, 2009 and remain your primary residence for three years.
You don’t have to pay it back. (Filing options available from the IRS website).
The confusing part comes into play for those looking to use the tax credit towards their downpayment or closing costs. The basic story is that FHA-approved lenders are able to create an additional loan that would allow you to access this money upfront for the following:
Assist in covering your closings costs.
Buy down your interest rate.
As additional money towards your downpayment.
From what realtors say, the catch is that buyers must still fund a minimum down payment of 3.5% from their own wallets. The tax credit can be used in addition to the 3.5% downpayment but cannot be used to make up any part of the 3.5%. The other catch is apparently these loans are not easily carried out and assistance is not widely available to say the least. Massachusetts just came out with its own program.
My friend Metrowest Massachusetts real estate broker extraordinaire Bill Gassett has all the details in his real estate blog and here.
Good lord, my head is still spinning from that video. I’ll leave it to the realtors to explain the credit in some fashion of clarity.
In late March of this year in the case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith C. Long issued one of the most controversial rulings in recent years which has called into question hundreds if not thousands of foreclosure titles across Massachusetts. The Ibanez decision is what happens when you mix equal parts of a deteriorating real estate market with Wall Street’s insatiable demand for mortgage back securities with sloppy lending practices and outdated state foreclosure statutes.
The Facts
In the Ibanez case, the Land Court invalidated two foreclosure sales because the lenders failed to show proof they held titles to the properties through valid assignments. In modern securitized mortgage lending practices, the ownership of a mortgage loan may be divided and freely transferred numerous times on the lenders’ books, but the documentation (i.e., the assignments) actually on file at the Registry of Deeds often lags far behind. The Land Court ruled that foreclosures were invalid when the lender failed to bring the ownership documentation (the assignments) up-to-date until after the foreclosure sale had already taken place. This was true even if the lender possessed an assignment with an effective date (i.e., backdated) before the first foreclosure notice.
The net effect of the Ibanez decision is to call into serious question the validity of any foreclosure where the lender did not physically hold the proper paperwork at the time it conducted its auction. This has already caused significant uncertainty in the ownership of many properties that have already been foreclosed and are awaiting foreclosure.
In deciding the case, Judge Long took a very pro-consumer approach to the foreclosure law, persuaded that the apparent title defect would chill a foreclosure sale and harm debtors:
None of this is the fault of the [debtor], yet the [debtor] suffers due to fewer (or no) bids in competition with the foreclosing institution. Only the foreclosing party is advantaged by the clouded title at the time of auction. It can bid a lower price, hold the property in inventory, and put together the proper documents any time it chooses. And who can say that problems won’t be encountered during this process?
Also of significance was that Judge Long rejected a customary Massachusetts conveyancing standard which provides that recording out of order assignment documents does not create a title defect. I think Judge Long got it wrong as he elevated form over substance and didn’t give enough credence to the legal principle that the note follows the mortgage, but hey, I’m just a lowly attorney.
What now?
The Ibanez ruling is not final as the lenders have filed a motion to reconsider with the Land Court. And now the heavy hitters have gotten involved. The Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts has taken the unusual step of filing a friend of the court brief, urging the Land Court to reconsider its decision.
On the consumer side, the National Consumer Law Center and well known consumer class action attorney Gary Klein have joined the fray and filed a brief. Attorney Klein has also filed a class action in federal court to challenge completed foreclosures and future foreclosures on the same facts as the two foreclosures voided in Ibanez.
As of now, Judge Long of the Land Court has not made a final decision which should come in a matter of weeks. I will update you when the ruling comes down. Either way, in my opinion, given the widespread impact of this case, it is destined for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It’s hard to say how the SJC will come down on this.
What can you if you are affected by the Ibanez ruling?
Well, if you are a homeowner facing foreclosure, consider Ibanez an early Christmas present. You now have a powerful tool to argue for the invalidation of the foreclosure sale. (I won’t comment on the fact that you still owe the lender money).
If you are contemplating purchasing a property out of foreclosure or are selling a previously foreclosed property, pray that there’s an existing title insurance policy on the property, and ask the title company to insure over the issue. Some are willing to do this. Others are not. The other option (albeit expensive) is to hire an attorney to file a Land Court “quiet title” action to validate the proper assignment of the mortgage loan, assuming you can track the documents down and they were not backdated. In Ibanez, the lender couldn’t produce the assignment until 14 months after the auction. The last option, and unfortunately probably the safest bet, is to sit, wait and see how the Land Court and appellate courts will rule ultimately. Not the answer you probably want to hear, but it’s reality.
The Massachusetts Purchase and Sale Agreement Is Anything But “Standard”
Home buyers sign a never ending pile of legal documents to purchase a home. But arguably the most important document in the entire transaction is the Massachusetts purchase and sale agreement. The purchase and sale agreement is signed after the Offer to Purchase is executed, and spells out the parties’ responsibilities during the interim period when the property is taken off the market and the closing.
In Massachusetts, the form most often used is the so-called standard form agreement supplied by the Greater Boston Real Estate Board or one modeled very closely to this form. (Due to copyright laws, we cannot embed the standard form agreement — contact my office if you need assistance with drafting a purchase and sale agreement). The “standard” form purchase and sale agreement is, however, far from standard, especially for buyers. In fact, the standard form is very much slanted in favor of the seller, and the playing field must be “leveled” to protect the buyer’s interests.
This is why it’s imperative that home buyers and sellers alike retain a Massachusetts real estate attorney to modify the “standard” form purchase and sale agreement in order to best protect all parties’ rights and remedies, and customize the agreement to the particular aspects of the transaction. This is typically done through a “rider” to the purchase and sales agreement. Often, the buyers’ attorney and the sellers’ attorney will attached two different riders to the agreement.
I’ll outline a few common issues not addressed adequately in the “standard” purchase and sale agreement. (Most of these are from the buyer’s perspective).
Mortgage Contingency
The “standard” purchase and sale agreement does provide a basic mortgage contingency which gives the buyer the option of terminating the agreement if mortgage financing falls through. However, for a buyer, the more specific you are in terms of interest rate, points, name of lending institution and definition of “diligent efforts,” the better. Buyers’ counsel should specify that the buyer will not be required to apply to more than one institutional lender currently making mortgage loans of the type sought by the buyer and that the buyer may terminate the purchase and sale agreement unless the buyer obtains a firm, written commitment for a mortgage loan. Here is a sample rider provision:
MODIFICATION TO PARAGRAPH 26: Application to one such bank or mortgage lender by such date shall constitute “diligent efforts.” If the written loan commitment contains terms and conditions that are beyond BUYER’S reasonable ability to control or achieve, or if the commitment requires BUYER to encumber property other than the subject property, BUYER may terminate this agreement, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreement shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto.
Home Inspection/Repairs
Typically, buyers complete the home inspection process prior to the signing of the purchase and sale agreement, and any inspection contingency provision is deleted from the purchase and sale agreement. What happens if the inspection results are not ready before the P&S signing deadline or if the seller has agreed to perform repairs prior to the closing or give a credit at closing? In this case, a home inspection contingency clause should be added back to the agreement, and any seller repairs or closing credits should be meticulously detailed in the rider.
Septic Systems/Title V
If the home is serviced by an on-site sewage disposal system otherwise known as a septic system, the Massachusetts Septic System Regulations known as Title V requires the inspection of the system within 2 years of the sale of the home. Failed septic systems can cost many thousands of dollars to repair or replace. Thus, buyers would look to be released from the agreement if the septic system fails inspection. Alternatively, buyers could be given the option to close if the seller can repair the septic system during an agreed upon time period, provided that the buyers do not lose their mortgage rate lock.
Radon Gas
Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas. The ground produces the gas through the normal decay of uranium and radium. As it decays, radon produces new radioactive elements called radon daughters or decay products which scientists have proven to cause lung cancer. Radon testing should be performed by buyers during the home inspection process. Elevated levels of radon (above 4.0 picoCuries per liter (pCi/l) can be treated through radon remediation systems. The purchase and sale agreement should provide for a radon testing contingency and the buyers’ ability to terminate the agreement if elevated radon levels are found, or the option of having the sellers pay for a radon remediation system.
Lead Paint
Under the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, buyers of property are entitled to have the property inspected for the presence of lead paint. (Sellers are not required to remove lead paint in a sale situation). Because the abatement of lead paint can be costly, buyers typically look for a right to terminate the purchase and sale agreement if lead paint exists and the abatement/removal of it exceeds a certain dollar threshold. Here is an example of a provision added to the standard form:
LEAD PAINT. Seller acknowledges that the Buyers have a child under six (6) years of age who will live in the premises. In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, section 197A, as the premises was constructed prior to 1978, Buyer may have the premises inspected for the presence of lead paint which inspection shall be completed within ten (10) days after the execution of this Agreement, unless extended in writing by the parties. If the inspection reveals the presence of lead paint, the abatement and/or removal of which will cost $2,000 or more, then Buyer may terminate this agreement, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreement shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto. Any lead paint removal or abatement shall be Buyers’ responsibility.
Access
When my wife and I signed the Offer to Purchase on our house, she couldn’t wait to get in there with her tape measure, paint chips and fabric swatches. Oftentimes overlooked, but a cause of friction is buyers’ ability to access the house prior to the closing. To avoid such friction, an access clause should be added to the purchase and sale agreement giving the buyer reasonable access at reasonable time with advance notice to the sellers–it’s still their house after all.
These are just a few of the issues not adequately addressed by the “standard” form purchase and sale agreement. There are many more.
_________________________________________ Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney, and has handled thousands of Massachusetts real estate transactions. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
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.
