Mortgage Crisis

HomeForeclosure-main_Full.jpg

Distressed Homeowners Take Another Hit

In another court ruling against embattled homeowners facing foreclosure, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that a defective 150 day cure notice is not a valid defense to a foreclosure sale. The case is Haskins v. Deutsche Bank (click for link to case). The ruling will make it more difficult for distressed homeowners to challenge foreclosure and could accelerate the pace of pending foreclosures.

150 Day Cure Notice

The 2010 Foreclosure Prevention Act requires that foreclosing lenders provide a borrower with a 150 day right to cure prior to starting a foreclosure proceeding. The notice must identify the current “holder” of the mortgage. Before this ruling, some trial courts had ruled that a bank’s failure to strictly comply with those requirements was sufficient grounds to halt a foreclosure sale.

In the Haskins case, the borrower challenged his foreclosure on technical grounds because the cure notice incorrectly identified the holder of the mortgage as IndyMac Mortgage Services. IndyMac was the mortgage servicer and mortgage was legally held in a securitized trust operated by Deutsche Bank.

Justice Mark Green, a former Land Court judge and former banking general counsel, recognized that today the vast majority of residential mortgages are serviced by large mortgage servicers while owned and held in securitized trusts. Rejecting the borrower’s form-over-substance argument, Justice Green ruled that as long as the borrower receives an accurate cure notice with the correct loan balance information and payment address so the borrower can pay up and cure, an erroneous identification of the actual mortgage holder should not affect the validity of the pending foreclosure.

Massachusetts foreclosure defense attorney Adam Sherwin, who represented the borrower, put up a valiant fight in this case. However, with this ruling and several recent decisions before it, foreclosure defense attorneys have suffered several setbacks in the courts, making it more difficult for distressed homeowners to challenge and stop foreclosures.

{ 0 comments }

mass ibanez titleSenate Bill 1987 Would Have Cleared Title For Innocent Homeowners

Acceding to the demands of fair housing community activists, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has rejected Senate Bill 1987, An Act Clearing Titles to Foreclosed Properties. The bill would have cleared title of homes affected by defective foreclosures with a one year waiting period from enactment of the bill while giving homeowners three years to challenge wrongful foreclosures. The Governor filed an amendment to the bill, raising the statute of limitations for homeowners to challenge foreclosures from 3 years in the current bill to 10 years. The Senate and House are unlikely to agree on such an absurdly long statute of limitations, so Patrick’s action should effectively kill the bill.

This is truly devastating news for the thousands of innocent homeowners who are stuck with bad title due to botched foreclosures.

The bill had cleared the Senate and House with near unanimous support. The bill also received favorable press in the Worcester Telegram and Boston GlobeThe bill preserves the right to challenge foreclosures and sue the banks, while helping innocent homeowners stuck with bad title. Despite this, organizations such as the Massachusetts Alliance Against Predatory Lending and activist Grace Ross were successful in getting Governor Patrick on their side.

The Governor’s statement accompanying his action on the bill states as follows:

Massachusetts is emerging from a period of far too many foreclosures, on far too many families, and in far too many communities facing significant economic challenges. It is no secret that, too often, the foreclosure was not properly effectuated.  The entity purporting to foreclose did not have the legal authority to do so.  The effect of these impermissible foreclosures has been lasting.  Families were improperly removed from their homes.  Buyers who later purchased the property — or, at least, believed they had done so — are now faced with title questions.  Many of these buyers were investors, but many are now homeowners themselves. I commend the Legislature’s effort to address these problems.  But I believe the proposed three year period is insufficient.  A family improperly removed from its home deserves greater protection, and a meaningful opportunity to claim the right to the land that it still holds.  The right need not be indefinite, but it should extend for longer than three years.  Certainty of title is a good thing — it helps the real estate market function more smoothly, which ultimately can help us all.  But this certainty should not come at the expense of wrongly displaced homeowners or, at least, not until we have put this period further behind us.

As a long time supporter of this bill, I am truly disheartened at this result. I thought the bill did a great job in balancing the rights of innocent home buyers who are stuck with unsellable properties through no fault of their own with the rights of folks who are fighting foreclosures. A three year statute of limitation — which is the same length for malpractice and personal injury claims — is a reasonable amount of time to mount a challenge to a foreclosure, especially when debtors have many months prior notice before a foreclosure sale. The people who would have benefited from this bill are everyday people who bought properties out of foreclosure, put money into them and improved them. I have personally assisted several of these families. Everyone agrees that the banks are largely at fault for the mess left behind with the foreclosure crisis but why put the rights of those who don’t pay their mortgages above those who do? I will never understand this rationale. Perhaps that’s why I could never be in politics!

So where do we go from here? I honestly don’t know. Fortunately, the Land Court recently issued a ruling which may help clear some of these toxic titles. Maybe the legislation will get another chance at the next session or when Patrick leaves office at the end of the year.

 

 

{ 14 comments }

mass ibanez titleIt appears we may be nearing the end of the misery resulting from the infamous U.S. Bank v. Ibanez foreclosure decision, which has caused hundreds if not thousands of title defects across the Commonwealth. A recent Land Court ruling combined with significant movement on curative legislation may clear the vast majority of these defective titles.

By way of background, titles of properties afflicted with Ibanez title defects came out of faulty foreclosures, and in worst cases, cannot be sold or refinanced. Many homeowners have been waiting for 5 years or longer for some kind of resolution so they can sell or refinance their homes. 

Daukas v. Dadoun Land Court Ruling

This past week on July 23, 2014, Land Court Justice Keith Long (ironically the same judge who wrote the original Ibanez ruling) held that an Ibanez title can be cleared through the foreclosure by entry procedure as long as three years have passed since the faulty foreclosure. Typically in Massachusetts lenders use both the power of sale/auction method and entry method of foreclosure. Unlike the power of sale/auction method, however, a foreclosure by entry takes three years to ripen into good title. Judge Long ruled that even where the power of sale/auction method was defective due to non-compliance with the Ibanez decision, the foreclosure by entry method would not be affected by this non-compliance provided that the lender was the “holder” of the mortgage at the time of the entry and three years have passed since the entry.

So what does that mean in plain English? It means that titles with Ibanez defects may be insurable and marketable provided that (1) the foreclosing lender conducted and recorded a proper foreclosure by entry, (2) the entry was conducted by a lender who was the proper holder of the foreclosed mortgage, and (3) three (3) years have passed since the foreclosure entry. If you have been dealing with an Ibanez defective title, it’s best to contact an experienced title attorney and/or your title insurance company (if you have one) to see if you qualify. Feel free to contact me at rvetstein@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

Thank you to Attorney Jeffrey Loeb of Rich May PC for alerting me to the Land Court case.

Senate Bill 1987

Senate Bill 1987, sponsored by Shrewsbury State Senator Michael Moore and the Massachusetts Land Title Association, would render clear and marketable to any title affected by a defective foreclosure after 3 years have passed from the foreclosure. The bill, which has been passed by the Senate and is now before the House, is very close to being passed by both branches of the legislature, hopefully during this summer legislative session.

This is great news for the real estate market. I don’t have firm numbers, but there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of these unsellable properties just sitting on the sidelines, and now they can get back onto the market. This is exactly what the inventory starved market needs.

{ 1 comment }

eviction-not

Distressed Homeowners Lose Key Defense, While Foreclosure Purchasers Gain More Title Security

Last week, the Supreme Judicial Court decided yet another important foreclosure case, U.S. Bank v. Schumacher (embedded below). The issue considered in Schumacher was whether a foreclosing lender’s defective 90 day notice to cure was a defense in a subsequent post-foreclosure eviction (summary process action) by the borrower. The SJC said no it was not a valid defense, as it should have been raised much earlier in the legal process in a separate action in the Superior Court.

Schumacher considered a 2007 law requiring that foreclosing lenders provide a borrower with a 90 day right to cure prior to starting a foreclosure proceeding. Before Schumacher, some trial courts had ruled that a bank’s failure to strictly comply with those requirements was fatal to a foreclosure sale. In such cases, even a post-foreclosure buyer of the property would have potentially defective title. From a title perspective this result was especially problematic since a bank’s compliance or non-compliance with §35A would not appear in the property’s title at the registry of deeds.

By holding that a defective cure notice is no defense to a post-foreclosure eviction, the SJC has made it more difficult for distressed homeowners to challenge the legality of foreclosures in eviction cases. On the flip side, the ruling will help buyers of foreclosed property as it makes their titles less susceptible to challenge by the previous owners.

U.S. Bank v. Schumacher (Mass. SJC 2014) by Richard Vetstein

{ 0 comments }

mass ibanez titleShould Result In Much-Needed Inventory Boost To Housing Market

Good news to report for property owners saddled with toxic titles resulting from the seminal U.S. Bank v. Ibanez foreclosure ruling. Massachusetts lawmakers are poised to pass into law a new bill aimed at legislatively clearing up all of these defective titles.

By way of background, properties afflicted with Ibanez title defects, in worst cases, cannot be sold or refinanced. And homeowners without title insurance have been compelled to spend thousands in legal fees to clear their titles, while some have not been able to clear their titles at all.

The new legislation, Senate Bill 1987, would render clear and marketable any title affected by a defective foreclosure after 3 years have passed from the foreclosure. Most of these toxic titles were created prior to 2009, so the vast majority of them will be cleared up.

The bill does preserve any existing litigation over the validity of foreclosures. The legislation does not apply if there is an existing legal challenge to the validity of the foreclosure sale in which case record notice must be provided at the registry of deeds. The bill also does not shield liability of foreclosure lenders and attorneys for bad faith and consumer protection violations over faulty foreclosures.

The bill has recently been passed by the Senate and now moves on to the House. Word is that it should pass through the House and on to the Governor’s Desk.

Shrewsbury State Senator Michael Moore and the Massachusetts Land Title Association have sponsored this effort for several years now. I have been supporting this effort as well.

This is great news for the real estate market. I don’t have firm numbers, but there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of these unsellable properties just sitting on the sidelines, and now they can get back onto the market. This is exactly what the inventory starved market needs.

(Hat tip to Colleen Sullivan over at Banker and Tradesman for passing along this important information).

{ 3 comments }

Foreclosure2-300x225.jpgHousing Courts Will Likely Face Increased Caseload

Giving an early Christmas present to distressed homeowners, the Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that a foreclosed upon homeowner may challenge a bank’s title and foreclosure sale irregularities through counterclaims in a post-foreclosure eviction in the Housing Court — rather than being forced to file a separate equity lawsuit in the Superior Court. The case is Bank of America v. Rosa, SJC-11330 (Dec. 18, 2013).

The high court also held that the Housing Court has jurisdiction to hear other counterclaims against foreclosing lenders, including fair housing, consumer protection (Chapter 93A), and HAMP related claims.

The likely impact of this ruling will be that the already busy Housing Court will now be “Ground Zero” for foreclosure related litigation. Foreclosed property owners will have more weapons to delay and prevent being evicted after foreclosures.

Overall, while the ruling seeks to protect the rights of foreclosed property owners, it has the potential to delay the housing recovery in Massachusetts. The longer folks who don’t pay their mortgages are allowed to live rent free in their foreclosed houses, the more the housing market suffers. There are plenty of creditworthy buyers and investors willing and able to buy up and rehab these foreclosed properties. Letting them sit and blight neighborhoods doesn’t help anyone in the long run. Just my opinion…

The ruling is embedded below. (Click for link).

Bank of America v. Rosa

{ 1 comment }

6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a90377db970b-800wiOne of the perks of writing this blog is that I get called by business reporters from around the country who think I know a thing or two about real estate law. While that proposition is certainly debatable, this week I was contacted by a very nice reporter from the Wall Street Journal who was doing a story about luxury homeowners falling into foreclosure. Here is a link to the article (in which I was quoted).

Naturally, I related this situation back to one of my mother’s favorite reality TV series: The Real Housewives of Orange County. The “Wives” of Orange County have been particularly affected by the real estate collapse. Apparently, Tamra, Alexis and Lynne’s enhanced beauty and vapid personalities were not enough to avoid foreclosure, eviction and short sales of their multi-million dollar mansions. But for “normal” millionaires like you and me, lenders may be more willing to work with high income borrowers, according to the Journal.

WSJ reporter, Annamaria Andriotis, found some data supporting her theory that due to the unique economics involved with the luxury home market (i.e., less buyers, more expensive to maintain), lenders are less likely to foreclose upon properties over $1 Million.

Lenders can be more willing to craft a new payment plan to make high-dollar homes more affordable. Paperwork and procedures are also often delayed, keeping homeowners in some states in their homes for two or more years after they’ve stopped making mortgage payments. And in some cases, lenders are offering homeowners tens of thousands of dollars in cash in exchange for their agreeing to a short sale, in which a home is sold for less than the borrower owes on the mortgage.

Repossession rates show the difference. Last year, roughly 85% of homes worth up to $1 million that received default notices were eventually repossessed, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks real-estate data. For homes worth more than $1 million, about 28%, or around 1,400 homes, were repossessed.

I have to assume that Massachusetts is not unique in this respect. Realtor John McGeough of McGeough & LaMacchia says he’s seen an increased in short sale activity for million-plus dollar homes in towns like Weston, Wellesley, Brookline, Newton, Gloucester, North Andover, South Natick, Sudbury, Concord, Sherborn, and Needham. McGeough reports that JP Morgan Chase paid one of his distressed clients $30,000 to do a short sale. Talk about cash for keys!

I don’t think there is any class warfare or real discrimination going on here. It’s simply dollars and sense. It’s more expensive for banks to foreclose and hold onto a million dollar property as opposed to working out a better deal with the borrower.

And by the way, I cannot stand those Housewives!

WSJ Foreclosure Forestalled Article 3.8.13 by

{ 0 comments }

11119985-homeowners-stop-foreclosureWe introduce this subject with a riddle: What entity is not a bank but claims to hold title to approximately half of all the mortgaged homes in the country? The answer is MERS. –Circuit Judge Bruce Seyla in Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicing of Nebraska,

For the second time in a week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has issued a major foreclosure opinion, this one in Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicing of Nebraska, No. 12-1285 (click to download opinion and embedded below). Writing for a distinguished panel which included retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Circuit Judge Bruce Seyla held that the MERS system passes legal muster, but — overruling numerous lower court decisions to the contrary — gave borrowers the right to challenge mortgage assignments in the wrongful foreclosure setting. In my opinion, the net effect of this decision will put to rest the ubiquitous challenges to the MERS regime in Massachusetts, yet could result in a slight uptick in foreclosure challenges by blessing borrowers with much sought after legal standing to challenge faulty mortgage assignments.

This opinion is a must read. Judge Seyla is well known for his linguistic talents. Make sure you get out your dictionaries — Judge Seyla likes big words.

MERS — Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.

For those who have not read our prior posts on MERS, it is an electronic registry of mortgages created by lenders in the 1990′s in order to facilitate the securitization and sale of mortgage back securities on Wall Street. Basically, when mortgages are bought and sold by various investors and lenders, MERS documents the transfers in its electronic database. However, historically the MERS-assisted transfers were not recorded through mortgage assignments in the state registries of deeds, a practice subject to much criticism. As for who “owns” the actual mortgage — another issue subject to much criticism and litigation — MERS claims that it acts solely as a “nominee” for the actual lender and holds only bare legal title to the mortgage as the mortgage holder of record.

When a loan go into default status and into foreclosure, MERS would, as in the Culhane case, facilitate the execution of a mortgage assignment to the current loan servicer, Aurora Servicing in this case. In another much criticized practice, one person wearing “two hats” would often execute these mortgage assignments. For the Culhane loan, an Aurora employee who was also a MERS “certifying officer” executed the assignment transferring the mortgage from MERS to Aurora. Ms. Culhane challenged this practice in her lawsuit seeking to void the foreclosure conducted by Aurora.

Borrower Has Legal Standing To Challenge Mortgage Assignments In Certain Cases

In a question of first impression in the First Circuit, the court considered whether borrowers have standing to challenge a MERS-initiated mortgage assignment even though a borrower is not a party to it. Overruling a significant number of cases around the country, the panel held that borrowers do have legal standing to challenge assignments  as “invalid, ineffective, or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had no authority to make an assignment to a particular assignee).” Judge Seyla adopted some common-sense reasoning, noting that under Massachusetts’ non-judicial foreclosure system, borrowers would be effectively left without a remedy to challenge a faulty foreclosure without giving them standing to contest a defective mortgage assignment.

MERS System Is Legal And Borrower Ultimately Loses

Ms. Culhane’s victory as this point unfortunately became Pyrrhic. Although the court held that borrowers could challenge mortgage assignments going forward, it did Ms. Culhane no good because she could not muster an adequate challenge to the MERS-Aurora mortgage assignment in her case. The court rejected Culhane’s argument that MERS did not legally hold the mortgage so it could not assign it, reasoning that nothing in Massachusetts mortgage law prohibited splitting the note and mortgage as the MERS system does. The court also found no legal problem with the same person signing on behalf of both MERS and Aurora.

Not The Last Word…

Culhane, however, may not be the last word on MERS and foreclosures in Massachusetts, as the Supreme Judicial Court always has the last and final say on these matters. Coincidentally, this week the SJC announced that it was soliciting friend-of-the-court briefs in Galiastro v. MERS, on whether MERS “has standing to pursue a foreclosure in its own right as a named ‘mortgagee’ with ability to act limited solely as a ‘nominee’ and without any ownership interest or rights in the promissory note associated with the mortgage; whether the prospective mandate of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time that case was decided.” The Galiastro case is scheduled for argument in April 2013.

As always, I’ll be on top of the latest developments in this ever-fluid area of law. Now, it’s time to eat those bagels and lox I’ve been waiting for.

_________________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who writes frequently about new foreclosure issues concerning the real estate industry. He can be reached at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicing (1st Cir. Feb. 15. 2013) by

{ 3 comments }

Massachusetts foreclosure defenseFederal Appeals Court Reinstates Borrower’s Wrongful Foreclosure Claim 

Noted Massachusetts foreclosure defense attorney Glenn Russell is on a roll of a lifetime, yesterday winning a rare victory on behalf of a borrower at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. The case is Juarez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (11-2431) (click for opinion). It is, I believe, the first federal appellate ruling in favor of a wrongful foreclosure claimant in the First Circuit which covers the New England area, and one of the first rulings to delve into the problem of back-dated mortgage assignments.

Alleged Backdated Mortgage Assignment Proves Fatal

Melissa Juárez purchased a home in Dorchester, Massachusetts on August 5, 2005, financing it with reputed sub-prime lender New Century Mortgage. The mortgage was packaged and bundled into a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”), a special type of trust that receives favorable tax treatment, ultimately being held by U.S. Bank, as trustee. Juárez could not afford the payments on the mortgage and defaulted. Foreclosure proceedings began in the summer of 2008, culminating in the sale of her home at an auction in October 22,2008. She claims, however, that lender did not hold the note and the mortgage at the time they began the foreclosure proceedings against her, and that the foreclosure was therefore illegal under Massachusetts mortgage law.

The problem in the case centered around the mortgage assignment into U.S. Bank, as trustee — the same problem the same bank faced in the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. The “Corporate Assignment of Mortgage,” appears to have been back-dated. It was dated October 16, 2008 and recorded in the corresponding registry of deeds on October 29, 2008, after the foreclosure had been completed. However, at the top of the document, it stated: “Date of Assignment: June 13, 2007,” in an obvious attempt to date it back prior to the foreclosure.

First Circuit Reinstates Borrower’s Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

After federal judge Denise Casper dismissed Juarez’s claims entirely on a motion to dismiss, the First Circuit reinstated the majority of Juarez’s claims. U.S. Bank claimed that the back-dated mortgage assignment was merely a confirmatory assignment in compliance with the Ibanez ruling, but the appeals court concluded otherwise:

Nothing in the document indicates that it is confirmatory of an assignment executed in 2007. Nowhere does the document even mention the phrase “confirmatory assignment.” Neither does it establish that it confirms a previous assignment or, for that matter, even make any reference to a previous assignment in its body.

Lacking a valid mortgage assignment in place as of the foreclosure, U.S. Bank lacked the authority to foreclose, the court ruled, following the Ibanez decision. Ms. Juarez and Glenn Russell will now get the opportunity to litigate their claims in the lower court.

Will Lenders Ever Learn Their Lesson?

The take-away from this case is that courts are finally beginning to scrutinize the problematic mortgage assignments in wrongful foreclosure cases. This ruling may also affect how title examiners and title insurance companies analyze the risk of back titles with potential back-dated mortgage assignments. If a lender records a true confirmatory assignment, it must do much better than simply state an effective date.

__________________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who writes frequently about new foreclosure issues concerning the real estate industry. He can be reached at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

{ 5 comments }

stop20foreclosure1Court Uses Novel Equitable Assignment of Mortgage Theory 

In what could be the first test case of a new theory to clear up defective foreclosure titles — and much welcome news for property owners stuck with toxic titles — Massachusetts Land Court Judge Gordon Piper has ruled that the theory of equitable assignment of an improperly foreclosed mortgage can be used to clear title of an improperly foreclosed property.

The case is Cavanaugh v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al., 11 MISC 447901 (embedded below) and was recently appealed by noted foreclosure attorney, Glenn Russell, Esq., who represented the prevailing homeowners in the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. The case will now go up to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, or, given its importance, perhaps taken up by the Supreme Judicial Court on direct appellate review.

In this case, GMAC Mortgage foreclosed a mortgage given by Maureen Cavanaugh of Fairhaven, then granted a foreclosure deed to Fannie Mae. The foreclosure, however, was defective because notice of the foreclosure sale was not published in the local newspaper as required by Massachusetts foreclosure law. Fannie Mae later sold the property to Timothy Lowney.

Ms. Cavanaugh sued the lenders and Mr. Lowney in a Land Court “quiet title” action to re-claim her property back. This is essentially the same situation as presented in the Bevilacqua vs. Rodriguez case where a property owner was stuck with a defective foreclosure title. The Court in Bevilacqua suggested an alternative theory to solve the defective title by using the conveyance of the foreclosure deed as an equitable assignment of the original mortgage, so the new property owner could foreclose and obtain clear title in the process.

Judge Piper used this equitable assignment theory in the Cavanaugh case, ruling that Lowney, the new buyer, holds the GMAC Mortgage through equitable assignment, and may now foreclose upon Ms. Cavanaugh, thereby clearing the way to get clean title. Equally important, Judge Piper ordered GMAC and Fannie Mae to assign the underlying promissory note from Ms. Cavanaugh to Lowney so that he holds both the note and the mortgage as required by after the important Eaton v. Fannie Mae case several months ago.

This is an important and much-needed judicial development for assisting homeowners who have been unable to refinance or sell their properties due to “Ibanez” and other foreclosure related title defects. This case also illustrates the importance of obtaining an owner’s policy of title insurance which appears to have provided coverage to Mr. Lowney in this matter.

Cavanaugh v. GMAC Mortgage — Massachusetts Land Court by

{ 3 comments }

ForeclosureLegal Standing For Mortgage Lender/Servicer Must Be Established To Start Foreclosure

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has issued what I believe to be another very important ruling involving foreclosures in the case of HSBC Bank v. Matt (embedded below). This case is the latest piece in the trilogy of recent landmark foreclosure opinions, starting with U.S. Bank v. Ibanez then Eaton v. Fannie Mae  — which has now come full circle from very limited judicial oversight of foreclosures to a much stricter legal environment for lenders.

In my opinion, the net effect of the HSBC v. Matt ruling is to make Massachusetts somewhat closer to a judicial foreclosure state than a non-judicial foreclosure state, as the ruling requires a foreclosing lender or mortgage servicer to submit actual evidence of legal standing to foreclose when they start a Servicemembers Act proceeding, a requirement that has never existed under Massachusetts law. This new requirement could prove to be potentially problematic to mortgages which are held in complex mortgage backed securitized trusts. However, a portion of the Court’s ruling — that only military members can raise a challenge — could turn out to blunt its impact. In the short-term, the Land Court will have to determine what evidence and documentation is legally sufficient for lenders to establish proper legal standing to foreclose.

Servicemembers (f/k/a Soldiers & Sailors) Civil Relief Act

The case involves the Servicemember’s Act proceeding which protects active military members from foreclosure. In Massachusetts, after a lender issues default notices, it will commence a Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act in the Land Court to ensure that the borrower is not on active military duty and to cut off any rights to challenge the foreclosure based on military status. Although a Soldiers and Sailors Act proceeding is not mandatory in order to legally foreclosure, the customary practice in Massachusetts is for lenders to go through the proceeding in order to ensure clear title to the foreclosed property. A Soldiers and Sailors Act proceeding has historically been perfunctory, but in recent years with the mortgage meltdown, borrowers have increasingly tried to challenge foreclosure in the Soldiers and Sailors Act proceeding.

Jodi Matt, represented by noted foreclosure defense attorney, Glenn Russell, Esq. (who also brought the Ibanez case), challenged HSBC Bank’s ability to foreclose in the Soldier’s and Sailors proceeding, arguing that HSBC could not establish that it held the right to foreclose as the trustee of the securitized trust which purported to hold Matt’s mortgage. The Land Court rejected Matt’s challenge on the grounds that Ms. Matt was not in military service. The SJC took the case on direct appellate review.

SJC Changes The Foreclosure Landscape Yet Again

Although it recognized that Ms. Matt was not in the military service — and ruled that borrowers not in the military cannot bring challenges under the Soldiers & Sailors Act  —  the SJC reached the question whether HSBC Bank had legal standing to start the foreclosure process in the Soldiers & Sailors Act proceeding. Following its prior landmark rulings in Ibanez and Eaton, the Court held that HSBC Bank lacked standing under the Act because it merely claimed to have the contractual option to become the holder of the mortgage. The SJC said that wasn’t good enough, and going forward a foreclosing lender must provide actual evidence to the Land Court that it is the actual holder of the mortgage or a duly authorized agent on behalf of the mortgagee.

When this decision is read together with the Court’s opinion in Eaton, which held that foreclosing lenders must hold both the promissory note and the mortgage, and in the context of securitized mortgages, the Matt ruling starts looking like a very BIG decision. Because of the extremely complex manner in which securitized mortgage trusts were organized by Wall Street (outside the scope of this post), there is an inherent problem in ascertaining which entity within the trust framework actually holds the mortgage and the underlying indebtedness, and therefore, the power to foreclose. As a result of this ruling, foreclosing lenders and mortgage services may have a much more difficult time in foreclosing.

What type and the quality of evidence that lenders need to submit will be left to the Land Court justices, as gate-keepers, to decide in future cases. That is a huge unknown question. The Land Court is presently overwhelmed with pending foreclosure petitions, quiet title actions and other matters given recent court budget cuts. Rest assured, this may play a factor in how they handle foreclosures post-Matt.

I will continue to monitor this ever-changing area of the law.

{ 4 comments }

CPFB copy

New Rule Aims To Prevent Predatory Lending

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has just issued what it deems “one of its most important rules to date.” It’s called the Ability To Repay Rule. The rule will ensure that a borrower should be able to afford their mortgage payment. Sounds like common sense, right? Yes and no, according to the agency. The CFPB is trying to prevent the subprime and predatory lending crisis of several years ago by requiring that lenders jump through several strict underwriting hoops for “fail-free” loans.

“When consumers sit down at the closing table, they shouldn’t be set up to fail with mortgages they can’t afford,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. “Our Ability-to-Repay rule protects borrowers from the kinds of risky lending practices that resulted in so many families losing their homes. This common-sense rule ensures responsible borrowers get responsible loans.”

The Qualified Mortgage (QM). The key feature of the new rule is the establishment of a “qualified mortgage” — with no risky loan features – such as interest-only payments or balloon payments – and with fees that add up to no more than 3% of the loan amount. In addition, these loans must go to borrowers whose debt does not exceed 43% of their income. These loans would carry extra legal protection for lenders under a two-tiered system that appears to create a compromise between the housing industry and consumer advocates.

End of No-Doc Loans. In the past, lenders could get away with offering low- or no-doc loans (they required few financial documents, if any, from the borrower and then could sell off the risky loans to investors). With the new rule, lenders must do a proper financial background. That means sizing up borrowers’ employment status; income and assets; current debt obligations; credit history; monthly payments on the mortgage; monthly payments on any other mortgages on the same property; and monthly payments for mortgage-related obligations.

Risky borrowers will have a harder time securing a loan. The lender must prove the borrower has “sufficient assets” to pay back the loan eventually. According to the CFPB, that’s determined by calculating debt-to-income ratio of no more than 43%.

Bye-bye to teaser rates. Lenders love to roll out juicy low introductory rates on mortgages to lure borrowers in, but under the new rule, they must calculate a borrower’s ability to repay his loan based on the true mortgage rate –– including both the principal and the interest over the long-term life of the loan.

The rule does not go into effect until January 1, 2014. This new rule has the potential of really shaking up the mortgage industry. We will be tracking future developments. We appreciate comments from mortgage professionals below.

More info:  CFPB Blog — Ability to Pay Rule
The Mortgage Porter: CFPB’s Qualified Mortgage Rule and The Ability to Repay

{ 0 comments }

Massachusetts-Short-SalesIt’s a Done Deal: Tax Forgiveness for Short Sales, Loan Modifications Remains In Effect Through End of 2013

Well, that didn’t take very long. Within 24 hours of the Senate’s late-night New Year’s Eve passing of the “Fiscal Cliff” bill, House Republicans caved, and passed the Senate version of the Fiscal Cliff bill, which extends the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 through the balance of 2013.

As originally reported by the National Association of Realtors, short sale agents and sellers should breath a sigh of relief due to the extension. This will extend mortgage debt forgiveness relief for home owners or sellers who have a portion of their mortgage debt forgiven by their lender, typically in a short sale, loan modification or deed in lieu transaction. Without the extension, any debt forgiven would have been taxable. For distressed households this would have added insult to injury and resulted in a large tax bill.

Also, Congress retained the mortgage-interest tax deduction and the PMI tax deduction. Overall, a very good result for the real estate industry!

________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who writes frequently about new legislation concerning the real estate industry. He can be reached at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

{ 1 comment }

1191289032001_2066007327001_Fiscal-Cliff-Clock-720x404

Breaking Update (1/2/12): House Passes Fiscal Cliff Bill, Extends Mortgage Debt Relief Act

Fate of Tax Forgiveness for Short Sales, Loan Modifications Remains In Limbo

As reported by the National Association of Realtors, short sale agents and sellers should breath a sigh of relief, but keep their fingers crossed with respect to the fate of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007, which was set to expire as part of the pending Fiscal Cliff. The “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012’’ (Fiscal Cliff bill), passed by the Senate in the wee hours of December 31, 2012, extends the Mortgage Debt Relief Act through the balance of 2013. This will extend mortgage cancellation relief for home owners or sellers who have a portion of their mortgage debt forgiven by their lender, typically in a short sale, loan modification or deed in lieu transaction. Without the extension, any debt forgiven would be taxable. For distressed households this would “add insult to injury” and result in a large tax bill.

Also included in the Senate Fiscal Cliff bill is the extension of exclusion from taxes for gains on the sale of a principal residence of up to $500,000 ($250,000 for individuals). Thus, only home sellers whose income is $450,000 or above and the gain on the sale of their house is above $500,000 would pay taxes on the excess capital gains at the higher rate (with corresponding numbers for individual filers). For the vast majority of home sellers, there is no change.

The Senate Fiscal Bill has moved over to the House of Representatives where its fate rests in the hands of Speaker Boehner and his fellow Republicans. The House has until noon on Thursday to pass the bill or start over with the start of a new legislative session with newly elected members.

{ 0 comments }

2011-20121I always look forward to recapping the year that was, and bringing out the crystal ball to predict the year ahead. This year, like years prior, was an active year for Massachusetts real estate law, with several important court rulings, legislative developments, and emerging legal trends. The year 2013 is expected to be just as busy.

Eaton v. Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae v. Hendricks Foreclosure Rulings

Another year, another pair of huge foreclosure rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On June 22, 2012, in Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, the SJC held that lenders must establish they hold both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to lawfully foreclose. This posed major problem for the vast majority of conventional mortgages which lenders securitized and sold off on the secondary mortgage market, thereby splitting the note and mortgage among various securitized trusts and mortgage servicers. Responding to pleas from the real estate bar, the SJC declined to apply its ruling retroactively, thereby averting the Apocalyptic scenario where thousands of foreclosure titles would have been called into question. My prior post on the Eaton ruling can be read here.

The FNMA v. Hendricks case had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The court upheld the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws,rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed.

New Medical Marijuana Law Has Landlords, Municipalities Smoking Mad

Burned up Massachusetts landlords and anti-pot local pols are still fuming with concern over the state’s newly passed but hazy medicinal marijuana law. The law — rolling out Jan. 1 — mandates the opening of at least 35 medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and grants users the right to grow a two-month supply of marijuana at home if they cannot get to a dispensary because they are too sick or too broke. The new law also potentially opens landlords up to federal prosecution for violating the federal controlled substances laws. Many towns and cities are contemplating banning dispensaries or passing zoning by-laws regulating their locations. My prior post on the new marijuana law can be read here.

539wApartment Rental Occupancy Limits

In 2013, the SJC will consider the Worcester College Hill case which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students and in other multi-family situations. The question is whether renting to 4 or more unrelated persons in one apartment unit requires a special “lodging house” license which would, in most cases, make it cost-prohibitive to rent to more than 3 unrelated persons. (Lodging houses require a built-in fire sprinkler system, for example). The SJC will hear oral arguments in the case on January 7, 2013.

Foreclosure Prevention Act Passed

On August 3, 2012, Governor Deval Patrick signed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The new law requires that lenders offer loan modifications on certain mortgage loans before foreclosing. Unfortunately, the law did not fix the problem with existing title defects resulting from the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case in 2010. (Sen. Moore’s office plans to re-introduce Senate Bill 830 in 2013). My prior post on the new law can be read here.

SJC To Consider Realtor’s Liability for Erroneous MLS Info

Sometime in 2013, the SJC will issue a very important opinion in the controversial DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. disclosure case where a Realtor was held liable for failing to verify the zoning of a listing on the Multiple Listing Service. The Court will also consider whether the exculpatory clause found in the Greater Boston Real Estate Board’s standard form purchase and sale agreement legally prohibits a buyer’s misrepresentation claim against the real estate agent. The Massachusetts Association of Realtors and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board have filed friend of the court briefs urging the SJC to limit Realtors’ disclosure obligations in the case. My prior post on the case can be read here.

Good Faith Estimate, TIL, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement To Change Dramatically

In the second major overhaul of closing disclosures in three years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be rolling out in 2013 a new “Lending Estimate” and “Closing Estimate” which will replace the current Good Faith Estimate, Truth in Lending Disclosure, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The changes are part of the Dodd-Frank Act, and has the lending and title insurance industries scrambling to figure out who should be ultimately responsible for the accuracy of closing fees and other logistics in delivering these new disclosures. My prior posts on the topic can be read here.

mw_1011_FISCAL_CLIFF_620x350Fiscal Cliff Anxiety Syndrome

The Year In Review would not be complete without mention of the dreaded Fiscal Cliff. As of this writing, President Obama and the House (which even rejected its own Speaker Boehner’s last proposal) have been unable to work out a deal to resolve the more than $500 billion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1, 2013. If there is no deal, and the country goes over the fiscal cliff, the consensus is that it will have quite a negative effect on the economy and the real estate market in particular.

Upcoming Event! On January 8, 2013, we are sponsoring a breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis, who will offer his predictions on 2013. Please email me to sign up. The Facebook Event invitation is here. The venue is Avita in Needham, 880 Greendale Ave., Needham, MA.

_____________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who hopes the White House and Congress can get their acts together and pass a compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

{ 0 comments }

High Anxiety Heading Into 2013

The term Fiscal Cliff should be as ubiquitous as “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays” through the year-end, especially if President Obama and Congress cannot work out a deal to resolve the more than $500 billion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1, 2013. If there is no deal, and the country goes over the fiscal cliff, the consensus is that it will have quite a negative effect on the economy and the real estate market in particular. (I debated using the word “disastrous” because there is a segment of commentators who say the housing market may survive a fall off the cliff).

There are four particular aspects of the Fiscal Cliff which could impact the real estate market.

1.  Expiration of Unemployment Benefits. Emergency jobless benefits for about 2.1 million people out of work will cease Dec. 29, and 1 million more will lose them over the next three months if Congress doesn’t extend the assistance again. Unemployed, even those receiving assistance, cannot and do not purchases homes. Democrats and President Obama want the unemployment benefits extended, but the Republicans are attempting to use this as leverage for their own fiscal cliff agenda. The real estate market will surely suffer if benefits aren’t extended.

2. Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act. The Mortgage Forgiveness Act is set to expire December 31. This tax break is critical for short sales, relieving homeowners from being taxed on any mortgage debt that was forgiven through a short sale, foreclosure or loan modification. If distressed homeowners are subject to tax on millions in debt forgiveness, short sales will likely decrease dramatically.

3. Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction. Once the sacred cow tax break for millions of middle and upper class homeowners, the mortgage interest deduction is reportedly on the chopping block. The National Association of Realtors and real estate groups have been apoplectic in urging no change to this important benefit to homeowners. Eliminating the mortgage deduction would raise taxes on all homeowners, and could dissuade renters from becoming homeowners.

4.  FHA/Fannie Mae Bailout. The Federal Housing Administration, the lender of choice for first-time homebuyers, is nearly insolvent and it could require a taxpayer bailout next year, according Edward J. Pinto, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Pinto claims the 78-year-old agency is $34.5 billion short of its legal capital requirement. “If it were a private company, it would be shut down,” argues Pinto. These aren’t the only issues threatening the real estate market. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government in 2008, taxpayers have plowed  $180 billion into them to keep them operational. This mess needs to be fixed next year.

Well, if your stomach isn’t in knots, mine is. Luckily, we have some medicine for you!

On January 8, 2013, we are sponsoring a breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis, who will offer his predictions on what 2013 will bring. Please email me to sign up. The Facebook Event invitation is here. The venue is Avita in Needham, 880 Greendale Ave., Needham, MA.

_____________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who hopes the White House and Congress can get their acts together and pass a compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

{ 0 comments }

Impact: Foreclosure Will Be Harder to Challenge

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) ruling in Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Hendricks just came down, and it’s good news for the foreclosure industry and bad news for distressed homeowners.

This case had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The borrower, Oliver Hendricks, challenged the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws. Rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed, the Court upheld the statutory form affidavit.

The case arose when Fannie Mae was attempting to evict Hendricks after the foreclosure. The court’s ruling provides that foreclosing lenders need only submit a valid foreclosure deed and statutory form affidavit during an eviction proceeding; the burden of proof then shifts to the borrower to come up with evidence of foreclosure irregularities. This has proven very difficult for distressed homeowners and their attorneys.

After this decision (and a recent Appeals Court ruling taking away a common eviction defense for post-eviction squatters), foreclosures and post-foreclosure evictions will be much harder to challenge. Also, we’ll likely see an acceleration of the pace of foreclosures, evictions of holdover borrowers, and a shrinking inventory of foreclosed and REO properties. Although distressed homeowners may be worse off, the overall real estate market stands to improve due to this ruling.

I’ll have more analysis later. The decision is embedded below. Also below is a video of the defendant, Olive Hendricks, speaking about his predicament produced by CityLife.

FNMA v. Hendricks

{ 4 comments }

All Politics Aside, It’s Time To Bring Housing & Real Estate Back To the Forefront

In the most tweeted, Facebook-ed and instant polled Presidential Campaign ever, there is one topic which has been met with surprisingly deafening silence: the U.S. Housing and Real Estate Market. During last week’s debate, we heard a lot about tax plans and cuts, energy, health care and jobs, but nothing on the real estate market. Nothing…This year’s presidential candidates have mostly avoided discussing an industry that’s largely responsible for the last five years of economic pain. But why?

For sure, the subject of housing remains an extremely sensitive one. President Obama might prefer that the real estate market, whose imbalances sparked the financial crisis, to remain a ghost issue because of a lackluster record at combating the foreclosure epidemic. He is also blamed for not doing enough on the loan modification front with the dismal HAMP and HARP programs. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, might like to steer clear of the topic because a hard stance on housing could alienate voters whom he needs to win. I’m not here to debate one particular side or candidate, but rather to simply pose the question of why no talk on real estate?

Obama Falls Short of Expectations?

“Obama’s major housing initiatives have fallen short of expectations, and so Obama doesn’t have big victories to point to,” said Jed Kolko, chief economist for listing service Trulia. “The housing market is still struggling in many parts of the country, so this is not a problem that’s been solved.” The administration’s flagship relief program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), has helped 1 million homeowners obtain lower interest rates, principal reductions, more time to pay their mortgages or any combination of the three. But that pales in comparison to the 3 to 4 million homeowners whom the program was supposed to help. Meanwhile, the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), designed to help 5 million homeowners refinance their mortgages into lower interest rates, has benefited only about 1.5 million homeowners.

Romney Gun-Shy On Housing?

Romney’s housing platform includes the potential elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that prospect may be just too scary and radical to everyday voters and homeowners who have relied on the government giants to stabilized the formerly free-falling real estate market. “To stake out what you think Fannie and Freddie’s future is is to alienate somebody,” commented Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute. “Realtors and home builders tend to be politically active — and Republicans,” noted Mr. Calabria. Indeed, Romney’s free-market stance on housing, if articulated bluntly, could unsettle many distressed homeowners as well. He has said that he believes that the housing market should naturally “hit bottom,” and has harshly criticized Obama’s relief programs.

Let’s Get The Housing Dialogue Going!

Over the past several months, I’ve enjoyed healthy (and even civil) political discussion on the issues on my Facebook feed. (Please join in!). The real estate market and housing always comes up, whether it’s in the context of folks not able to refinance their underwater mortgages, the loss of their equity, or the impact of unemployment on the general real estate sector. Granted, the real estate market has made significant gains since the bottom fell out in 2008, but folks are still hurting out there and it’s really been the Fed and its low interest rates which have largely kept the market from imploding. So, we should be talking about all the issues. And that means federally assisted refinancing for underwater mortgages, Fed policy on interest rates, and the future of the GSE’s. Oh and by the way, where did all that foreclosure crisis settlement money go? I have yet to hear about anyone who has received any assistance from that fund.

Well, if Obama and Romney aren’t going to talk housing and real estate, we can do it here on this blog. Feel free to post your comments, diatribes or soapbox speeches in the comment section below. You can use the Facebook comments too. Keep the debate civil please!

{ 4 comments }

Court Will Consider Mortgage Servicer/MERS Standing and Statutory Foreclosure Affidavits

The Supreme Judicial Court has a busy Fall Term with several important foreclosure cases on the docket. Here’s a quick summary.

HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt (SJC-11101)

The SJC is considering whether a mortgage servicer holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process. I wrote about this case in a prior post here. This ruling will affect just about every conventional mortgage foreclosure in the state. The lower court Land Court opinion can be read here.  The court asked for friend-of-the-court briefs, and the Real Estate Bar Association filed a brief supporting the foreclosing lenders. Glenn Russell’s brief for the appellant Jodi Matt can be read here.

Oral arguments were held in early September, but unfortunately the webcast is unavailable. One of my sources told me that the justices were very active and peppered both attorneys with lots of questions.

Following the recent Eaton v. FNMA case, which held that a mortgage servicer may foreclosure upon a showing of proper agency and authority, I predict that the Court will ultimately hold that servicers and lenders holding rights to securitized mortgages have legal standing to start the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act proceeding, even if they merely hold a contractual right to the actual mortgage. The most compelling rationale for such a ruling is that the only purpose of the Servicemember proceeding is to ascertain whether the borrower is in active military service. It is not intended to be a forum to litigate issues relating to the propriety of securitized mortgage transfers and contractual standing.

Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Hendricks (SJC 11234)

This case has the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice. The issue presented is whether the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws is on its face sufficient. The case will also decide whether the statutory power of sale form, originally drafted in 1912, is also facially sufficient. The docket and briefs filed in the case can be found here.

The case originated from the Boston Housing Court where Hendricks fought his post-foreclosure eviction by Fannie Mae, asserting that the affidavits filed by Fannie Mae reciting compliance with the foreclosure statute were inadmissible and insufficient. A Housing Court judge disagreed, and upheld the foreclosure and the eviction.

With the well-publicized robo-signing controversy looming in the background, I would not be surprised if the SJC rules in favor of Hendricks here and in the process tightens up the requirements for filing foreclosure affidavits. Indeed, that is the trend with the Legislature’s recent passing of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. As with the Eaton v. FNMA ruling, the Court should likely make its ruling prospective and not retroactive so as to not disrupt titles in the Commonwealth.

Galiastro v. MERS (SJC DAR 20960)

The SJC just accepted direct appellate review from the Appeals Court in this interesting case. This case will finally decide whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has standing to foreclose in its own name. The case, however, is somewhat mooted because MERS no longer forecloses in its own name, but there are plenty of MERS foreclosures in back titles. The SJC has announced that it will solicit friend-of-the-court briefs on the issue of “whether MERS “has standing to pursue a foreclosure in its own right as a named ‘mortgagee’ with ability to act limited solely as a ‘nominee’ and without any ownership interest or rights in the promissory note associated with the mortgage; whether the prospective mandate of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time that case was decided.” This case will be argued in April 2013. I will have analysis after that.

_____________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney with an expertise in foreclosure related issues. You can contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

 

{ 0 comments }

Coakley Expects Fed’s Compliance with New Loan Modification Law

Attorney General Martha Coakley is picking a very public fight with federal mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the wake of the new Massachusetts Foreclosure Prevention Act passed earlier in August. The new law requires that lenders first explore loan modifications before starting foreclosure proceedings.Fannie and Freddie control approximately 60% of all U.S. residential mortgages.

In a letter broadcast to the press yesterday, she demands that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, like all creditors, to comply with these statutory obligations as they conduct business in Massachusetts. These loan modifications are critical to assisting distressed homeowners, avoiding unnecessary foreclosures, and restoring a healthy economy in our Commonwealth,” Coakley said. Stefanie Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said, “We are reviewing the letter and will respond soon.”

The fact that AG Coakley had to write the letter begs the question. Will Fannie and Freddie comply with the new Massachusetts foreclosure law? Maybe not, if past performance is any indicator of future results.

The Federal Housing Finance Agent (FHFA), the federal regulator overseeing Fannie and Freddie, has been acting like some sort of federal rogue agency of late. Last month, the agency publicly rejected the new Obama principal reduction plan, to the chagrin of Treasury Secretary Tim Geither. And in June, it came up with a method to skirt the new tough foreclosure law passed in Hawaii. It seems that the sole concern of FHFA is to get foreclosures completed and REO properties sold off as quickly as humanly possible, homeowners be damned.

If Fannie and Freddie blow off Coakley, this will seriously dilute the new Foreclosure Act. We will monitor the situation as always.

____________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney with an expertise in foreclosure related issues. You can contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

 

{ 2 comments }

Real Time Analytics