Mortgage Crisis

2011 Massachusetts Real Estate Law Year In Review

by Rich Vetstein on December 30, 2011

in Foreclosure, Homestead, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Real Estate Litigation, Title Defects, Trespass

It’s time again for our annual review of highlights in Massachusetts Real Estate Law for the past year. It’s been a very busy year. From the foreclosure fallout, to Occupy Boston, to the new homestead law, there’s been lots to report on. We’ll start in order of importance this year.

SJC Decides Controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Case

2011 started off with a bang with the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the widely publicized foreclosure case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. Our coverage of the case can be read here and here. The Court’s ruling was rather elementary: you need to own the mortgage before you can foreclose. But it’s become much more complicated with the proliferation of securitized mortgages bought and sold numerous times on Wall Street. The Court held that the common industry practice of assigning a mortgage “in blank” — meaning without specifying to whom the mortgage would be assigned until after the fact — does not constitute a proper assignment, at least in Massachusetts. The ruling left many innocent homeowners and title insurance companies scrambling to deal with titles rendered defective due to the ruling. The fallout continues to this day with no resolution by lawmakers.

AG Coakley Sues Major Banks For Foreclosure Fraud

2011 was certainly the Year of Foreclosure Fallout. Earlier in December, Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” The case remains pending.

Massachusetts Real Estate Attorneys Win Legal Victory Ensuring Their Place At Closing Table

In the closely watched case of Real Estate Bar Association (REBA) v. National Estate Information Services (NREIS), Massachusetts real estate attorneys won a huge legal victory reaffirming their long-standing role to oversee the closing process and conduct closings in Massachusetts. The case pitted Mass. attorneys vs. out of state notary companies who were trying to conduct notary real estate closings without trained attorneys. Siding with the consumer, the court required “not only the presence but the substantive participation of an attorney on behalf of the mortgage lender.”

New Homestead Law

This year saw the passing of the long-awaited comprehensive revision to our outdated Homestead Act. Here is a summary:

  • All Massachusetts homeowners receive an automatic homestead exemption of $125,000 for protection against certain creditor claims on their principal residence without having to do anything.
  • All Mass. residents are eligible for a $500,000 “declared homestead exemption” by filing a declaration of homestead at the registry of deeds. For married couples, both spouses will now have to sign the form–which is a change from prior practice.
  • Homesteads are now available on 2-4 family homes, and for homes in trust.
  • The existing “elderly and disabled” homestead will remain available at $500,000.
  • If you have a homestead as a single person, and get married, the homestead automatically protects your new spouse. Homesteads now pass on to the surviving spouse and children who live in the home.
  • You do not have to re-file a homestead after a refinance.

More Foreclosure Fallout With Bevilacqua and Eaton Cases

The U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case was the start, but certainly not the ending of the foreclosure fallout. The case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez considered property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures. The ruling with a mix of good and bad news. The bad news was that victims of defective foreclosure titles could not seek redress through the Land Court “quiet title” procedure. The good news was that the court left open whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together (like Humpty-Dumpty) and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles.

Eaton v. Fannie Mae is the next foreclosure case awaiting final decision. As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the very important question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Using the “produce the note” defense which has been gaining steam across across the country, the borrower, Ms. Eaton, was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting her eviction by a foreclosing lender. The SJC heard arguments in the fall and is expected to issue a final ruling early in 2012. A ruling against lenders would be as big, or even bigger, than the Ibanez case.

Lastly, another case to watch for in 2012 is HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt which will decide whether a lender 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. The case is should be ready for oral argument in late winter, early spring 2012.

Judge Evicts Occupy Boston Protesters

What would 2011 be without a homage to the Occupy Movement! Citing property and trespass law from centuries ago, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Frances A. McIntyre issuing a ruling clearing the way for the eviction of the Occupy Boston protest which has taken over Dewey Square in downtown Boston. Our coverage of the ruling is here.

Well, that’s it for a very busy year 2011 in Massachusetts real estate law! The year 2012 is expected to be just as busy, and of course, we’ll be on top of all the breaking news here on the Blog.

______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

{ 0 comments }

Inertia Is Not An Option: Superior Court Rules BofA Can’t Drag Heels On HAMP Loan Modification

by Rich Vetstein on December 24, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Real Estate Litigation

First Reported Mass. Ruling On Home Affordable Modification Program Liability

The fallout from the sub-prime and mortgage crisis continues in Massachusetts courts, and some judges are reacting in favor of sympathetic borrowers. In Parker v. Bank of America, Massachusetts Superior Court (Dec. 15, 2011), Judge Thomas Billings considered what is unfortunately now a very common fact pattern in borrowers’ quest to have their lenders approve loan modifications, or loan mods. The ruling is embedded below.

A Common Story of Lost Paperwork and Ineptitude

In 2007, Valerie Parker granted first and second mortgages on her home in Lowell to Bank of America. She paid the loans on time for the first 24 months. As the economy worsened, however, she anticipated difficulty in making payments, and so she called BofA for advice. The bank told her that because the loan was not in default they could not help her, and that she would have to cease payments if she wanted their assistance. (Is this not one of the most ridiculous, yet common, responses lenders give to troubled borrowers?)

After a lengthy period of lost and repeatedly re-submitted paperwork, BofA informed Parker she qualified for HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) relief, underwent a lengthy financial audit over the telephone, and was promised followup documentation and a halt to further collection and foreclosure efforts. BofA repeatedly lost her paperwork; she had to submit and re-submit documents; and she spent hours at a time on hold, waiting to speak with a human being. She did, however, receive the bank’s verbal assurance that she was “pre-qualified” for the HAMP program and that confirmatory paperwork would be forthcoming. BofA never sent the promised documentation, however, and refused to approve a loan modification. Lengthy and repeated telephone calls produced no documents, no approval, and no progress. Finally, BofA told Parker there was no record of her having qualified for the program. She requested and was given the opportunity to reapply, but the documentation still never came. All while, the collection calls continued and the late fees kept mounting, and the loan was at some point placed in foreclosure.

“Inertia Is Not An Option”

Parker asserted a number of different claims against BofA, but the two which stuck, according to the judge, were her claims for fraud and breach of contract. The judge went through a lengthy history of the recent sub-prime crisis, the TARP bailout plan, and the HAMP program, concluding that BofA’s actions against Parker were unfair under these consumer protection programs.

In a great line, the judge said that “inertia is not an option” when a lender considers a borrower’s legitimate request for a HAMP loan modification. Under HAMP, there are strict deadlines by which lenders must respond to a borrower’s application, and foreclosure activity must stop during the consideration period. The judge lamented that federal regulators had failed to pass enforcement mechanisms to protect borrowers from lenders dragging their heels on loan modifications. Noting that borrowers have no other forum in which their claims may be heard and adjudicated other than the courts, Judge Billings held that Parker could claim “third party beneficiary” status of BofA’s participation in the TARP/HAMP program–diverging from several colleagues opinions to the contrary.

Lastly, in a boon for borrowers, the court left open whether lenders could face Chapter 93A liability — with its triple damages and attorneys’ fees — for similar conduct. While Parker’s counsel dropped the ball by not sending BofA a required demand letter prior to filing suit, this option may be open for other borrowers.

Impact of Ruling

This is one of the first court rulings siding with a borrower on a lender’s liability for dropping the HAMP ball. Clearly, this particular judge is well-educated on what’s been going on with the mortgage crisis and was likely fed up with lenders’ shoddy treatment of some borrowers. But is his legal reasoning correct? The judge can certainly be accused of legislating from the bench here, as the vast majority of other court rulings have rejected his reasoning. (At least 6 opinions by my count, mostly from federal court).

But his reasoning does have some intrinsic appeal inasmuch as HAMP is clearly a consumer driven program and the judge is basically saying that lenders must treat HAMP applicants fairly in accordance with the program rules. If what Ms. Parker says is true, there is a minimum level of fairness that she did not receive. But the problem is what if she simply doesn’t qualify for a loan modification? And every lender who entertains a modification request can be subject to civil liability for rejecting an applicant? Would that chill HAMP modifications even more? Rest assured, we will see more cases like Parker reaching the Superior Court and the Massachusetts appellate courts in the near future.

________________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

Parker v. Bank of America (BofA)

{ 0 comments }

SJC Agrees To Hear Crucial Foreclosure Standing Case In HSBC Bank v. Matt

by Rich Vetstein on December 2, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Updated (1/14/13): SJC Rules Against Lender, Holds That Ownership of Mortgage Must Be Established

Court May Decide Lenders’ Standing In All Foreclosure Cases Involving Securitized Mortgages

With all the hoopla yesterday surrounding Attorney General Martha Coakley’s monumental lawsuit against the big banks over foreclosure practices, the Supreme Judicial Court on November 29, 2011 quietly agreed to hear an appeal over whether a lender 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.

The case is HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt. The docket can be downloaded here.

The SJC will ostensibly decide whether lenders holding mortgages held in a securitized pool, with questions whether they in fact were validly assigned those mortgages, can start foreclosures in Massachusetts.

First Steps: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is one of the first steps in the foreclosure process. Lenders must file a complaint in the Land Court under the Act to ensure the borrower is not in active military service. Once the Land Court determines the borrower’s status in the military, then the lender can proceed to advertise and hold a public foreclosure auction. Historically, the Servicemembers action was rather perfunctory, but today borrowers have begun to challenge lenders’ right to start foreclosures in these initial Land Court proceedings.

Lower Court Opinion

In the lower court, Land Court Judge Keith Long (the judge in both the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and Bevilacqua cases), ruled that HSBC Bank had standing to start the foreclosure process under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, despite serious questions as to whether HSBC validly held the mortgage. The original mortgage was held by New Century, which was in bankruptcy when it purported to assign the mortgage to HSBC. There was no evidence the assignment was authorized by the bankruptcy trustee and whether the signatory had any office or authority to transfer New Century’s bankrupt assets to other parties. Despite these questions, Judge Long ruled that HSBC, through a securitized pooling and servicing agreement, had the contractual right to become the holder of the mortgage, thereby conferring enough standing to start the foreclosure process.

SJC Takes Appeal Sua Sponte

The SJC, in a rare move, took the appeal on its own initiative (sua sponte in legalese) from the Appeals Court. It has not yet released an argument schedule. We’ll be following the case here, so stay tuned.

Notably, foreclosure defense attorney Glenn Russell, Esq., the attorney who prevailed before the SJC in the Ibanez case, is representing the home owner in this case.

The Land Court’s ruling is embedded below.

HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt

{ 3 comments }

A Tale Of Two Opinions: Mass. AG Sues Major Banks and MERS Over Foreclosure Mess While Federal Judge Upholds MERS System

by Rich Vetstein on December 1, 2011

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

Mass. AG Martha Coakley Credit: Reuters

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

AG Martha Coakley Files Major Civil Action Against Big Banks

First, the big news. Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” Specifically, Coakley blames the banks for not complying with the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision in foreclosing mortgages without evidence of legal ownership of the underlying debt, improper statutory foreclosure notices and illegal “robo-signing.”

I’m sure Coakley will be able to extract a sizable settlement from the banks, but the question remains, what about the foreclosure mess and toxic titles left in its wake? I hope Coakley seriously considers setting up a toxic title monetary fund to assist homeowners who lack title insurance with clearing their titles due to bungled foreclosures in their chain of title.

Here is a link to the AG’s Complaint.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicers: Federal Judge William Young Grapples With Legality Of MERS System

While AG Coakley was putting the finishing touches on her lawsuit, across the way at the Moakley Courthouse at Fan Pier, U.S. District Judge William G. Young and his cadre of law clerks were attempting to work their way through the legal maze which is the MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) system. The case is Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska. We’ve written about MERS quite a bit here on the blog.

I can say with confidence that Judge Young is one of the smartest jurists on the federal bench and in the Commonwealth. I know this first-hand because I clerked for him in law school.

It took him 59 pages to sort though the myriad of legal issues implicated by the complex MERS system, and he had some very choice (and funny) remarks about the system:

“MERS is the Wikipedia of Land Registration Systems.” . . . “A MERS certifying officer is more akin to an Admiral in the Georgia navy or a Kentucky Colonel with benefits than he is to any genuine financial officer.”

Judge William G. Young

But ultimately, Judge Young concluded that MERS did not run afoul of Massachusetts law, by the “thinnest of venires.” So there you have it. MERS is kosher in Massachusetts, at least according to Judge Young.

However, Judge Young’s ruling came with some important caveats. First, he held that MERS does not have the power to foreclose in its own name. This is no longer an issue as MERS new policy is not to foreclosure in its name. But what about prior foreclosures in MERS’ name? Are those still considered valid?

Second, in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, sec. 54B, he ruled that assignments from MERS’ vice presidents to loan servicers or holders are valid despite the signer’s lack of personal knowledge or proof of actual authority. This is a direct contradiction with AG Coakley’s claim that the MERS assignments are invalid.

Lastly, the most important aspect of Judge Young’s ruling was his agreement that foreclosing lenders must hold both the loan (promissory note) and the mortgage together in unity, to foreclose, following the controversial Superior Court opinion in Eaton v. FNMA which is now on appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court. However, Judge Young added an important distinction to this rule, saying that that loan servicers could foreclose in their names where the loan is held in a pooled securitized trust, provided they otherwise comply with Massachusetts foreclosure law. This is a very important distinction as a fair amount of foreclosures are brought in the name of the loan servicer. I’m not so sure Judge Young got this one right as a loan servicer rarely if ever holds the note as assignee, as Professor Adam Levitin notes, but the ruling certainly assists the industry.

So all eyes are back on the SJC awaiting its ruling in the Eaton case which could have even far more impact than the Ibanez decision. Of course, these two events underscore that foreclosures are still a mess crying out for legislative help (which hasn’t come at all), and the crucial importance of title insurance, which all buyers should elect at their closings.

I’ve done a quick video analysis and embedded Judge Young’s opinion below.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services

{ 7 comments }

Massachusetts Superior Court Again Endorses “Produce The Note” Foreclosure Defense

by Rich Vetstein on November 8, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Final Say Will Come Soon At SJC In Eaton v. FNMA

In Adamson v. MERS (embedded below), Superior Court Judge Raymond Brassard became the second Massachusetts trial judge to endorse the so-called “produce the note” defense in a foreclosure defense case. The question of whether a foreclosing lender must hold both the promissory note and the mortgage at the same time is now before the Supreme Judicial Court in the eagerly awaited case of Eaton v. Fannie Mae.

In Adamson, Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) claimed to be the holder of the mortgage at the behest of Deutsche Bank. America’s Servicing acted as the servicer. This was a classic sub-prime mortgage with $440,000 in principal at 8.5% interest, with a balloon payment of $370,000 at the end of 30 years. (No wonder the borrower couldn’t keep up with the payments).

The kicker in this case was when America’s Servicing sent the borrower a denial letter for a loan modification stating that it would not foreclose in the next 30 days under the federal HAMP program to give the borrower a chance to explore other modification option. It foreclosed the next day. Ouch.

Unification Theory

Relying on the Judge McIntyre’s earlier decision in the Eaton case, Judge Brassard was persuaded that Massachusetts still holds on to the unification theory where a foreclosing lender must hold both the note and the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. Judge Brassard expressed concern that separating the mortgage from the note could lead to double liability for the borrower (first, a foreclosure, then an attempt to collect the note).

In a ruling which will make foreclosure defense attorneys salivate, Judge Brassard found merit to the borrower’s claim that the lender and the servicer violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A, for foreclosing the day after the denial letter was issued, in violation of the 30 day safe harbor period.

Impact & What’s Next?

With two Superior Court judges endorsing this theory and several bankruptcy court judges rejecting it, all eyes are now on the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the Eaton v. Fannie Mae case which will be the final say in the matter. If the SJC accepts the unification theory, it will be a bigger bombshell than the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case last year.

Until the SJC decides the Eaton case, this ruling will continue to slow down the pace of foreclosures in Massachusetts. This will, in turn, keep the inventory of REO properties high, causing further drag on the troubled housing market.

Thank you to the blogging attorneys at the Massachusetts Land Use Monitor for bringing this case to my attention.

Adamson v. MERS Decision

{ 0 comments }

What Now? Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez Leaves Toxic Foreclosure Titles Unclear

by Rich Vetstein on October 18, 2011

in Deeds, Foreclosure, Liens, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Real Estate Litigation, Title Defects, Title Insurance

No Easy Fix For Defective Foreclosure Titles After U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Ruling

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion today in the much anticipated Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez case considering property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures in the aftermath of the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling last January. (Text of case is embedded below). Where Ibanez consider the validity of foreclosures plagued by late-recorded or missing mortgage assignments, Bevilacqua is the next step, considering what happens when lenders sell defective foreclosure titles to third party purchasers. Previously, I discussed the oral argument in the case here and detailed background of the case here.

The final ruling is mix of bad and good news, with the bad outweighing the good as fixing defective Massachusetts foreclosure titles just got a lot harder and more expensive. But, contrary to some sensationalist headlines, the sky is not falling down as the majority of foreclosures performed in the last several years were legal and conveyed good title. Bevilacqua affects those minority percentage of foreclosures where mortgage assignments were not recorded in a timely fashion under the Ibanez case and were otherwise conducted unlawfully. Importantly, Bevilacqua does not address the robo-signing controversy, which may or may  not be considered by the high court in another case.

The Bad News

First the bad news. The Court held that owners cannot bring a court action to clear their titles under the “try title” procedure in the Massachusetts Land Court. This is the headline that the major news outlets have been running with, but it was not a surprise to anyone who has been following the case. Contrary to the Daily Kos, the court did not take the property away from Bevilacqua. He never held good title it in the first place–and you can blame the banksters for that. If you don’t own a piece of property (say the Brooklyn Bridge), you cannot come into court and ask a judge to proclaim you the owner of that property, even if the true owner doesn’t show up to defend himself. It’s Property Law 101.

The Good News

Next the good news. The court left open whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together (like Humpty-Dumpty) and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles. Unfortunately, the SJC did not provide the real estate community with any further guidance as to how best to resolve these complicated title defects.

Background: Developer Buys Defective Foreclosure Title

Frank Bevilacqua purchased property in Haverhill out of foreclosure from U.S. Bank. Apparently, Bevilacqua invested several hundred thousand dollars into the property, converting it into condominiums. The prior foreclosure, however, was bungled by U.S. Bank and rendered void under the Ibanez case. Mr. Bevilacqua (or presumably his title insurance attorney) brought an action to “try title” in the Land Court to clear up his title, arguing that he is the rightful owner of the property, despite the faulty foreclosure, inasmuch as the prior owner, Rodriguez, was nowhere to be found.

Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) closed the door on Mr. Bevilacqua, dismissing his case, but with compassion for his plight.

“I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote.

Given the case’s importance, the SJC took the unusual step of hearing it on direct review.

No Standing To “Try Title” Action In Land Court

The SJC agreed with Judge Long that Bevilacqua did not own the property, and therefore, lacked any standing to pursue a “try title” action in the Land Court. The faulty foreclosure was void, thereby voiding the foreclosure deed to Bevilacqua. The Court endorsed Judge Long’s “Brooklyn Bridge” analogy, which posits that if someone records a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, then brings a lawsuit to uphold such ownership and the “owner” of the bridge doesn’t appear, title to the bridge is not conveyed magically. The claimant in a try title or quiet title case, the court ruled, must have some plausible ownership interest in the property, and Bevilacqua lacked any at this point in time.

The court also held, for many of the same reasons, that Bevilacqua lacked standing as a “bona fide good faith purchaser for value.” The record title left no question that U.S. Bank had conducted an invalid foreclosure sale, the court reasoned.

Door Left Open? Re-Foreclosure In Owner’s Name?

A remedy left open, however, was whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together and conduct new foreclosure sales in their name to clear their titles. The legal reasoning behind this remedy is rather complex, but essentially it says that Bevilacqua would be granted the right to foreclosure by virtue of holding an “equitable assignment” of the mortgage foreclosed upon by U.S. Bank. There are some logistical issues with the current owner conducting a new foreclosure sale and it’s expensive, but it could work.

That is if the SJC rules in the upcoming Eaton v. FNMA case that foreclosing parties do not need to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage when they foreclose. An adverse ruling in the Eaton case could throw a monkey wrench into the re-foreclosure remedy–it would also be an even bigger bombshell ruling than Ibanez, as it would throw into question the foreclosure of every securitized mortgage in Massachusetts.

In Bevilacqua’s case, he did not conduct the new foreclosure sale, so it was premature for the court to rule on that issue. Look for Bevilacqua to conduct the new foreclosure and come back to court again. The SJC left that option open.

Other Remedies & What’s Next?

The other remedy to fix an Ibanez defect, which is always available, is to track down the old owner and obtain a quitclaim deed from him. This eliminates the need for a second foreclosure sale and is often the “cleanest” way to resolve Ibanez titles.

Another option is waiting out the 3 year entry period. Foreclosure can be completed by sale or by entry which is the act of the foreclosure attorney or lender representative physically entering onto the property. Foreclosures by entry are deemed valid after 3 years have expired from the certificate of entry which should be filed with the foreclosure. It’s best to check with a real estate attorney to see if this option is available.

The last resort is to demand that the foreclosing lender re-do its foreclosure sale. The problem is that a new foreclosure could open the door for a competing bid to the property and other logistical issues, not to mention recalcitrant foreclosing lenders and their foreclosure mill attorneys.

Title insurance companies who have insured Ibanez afflicted titles have been steadily resolving these titles since the original Ibanez decision in 2009. I’m not sure how many defective foreclosure titles remain out there right now. There certainly could be a fair amount lurking in titles unknown to those purchasers who bought REO properties from lenders such as U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, etc. If you bought such a property, I recommend you have an attorney check the back title and find your owner’s title insurance policy. Those without title insurance, of course, have and will continue to bear the brunt of this mess.

More Coverage:

_____________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure title defect matters & cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez; Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court October 18, 2011

{ 18 comments }

SJC Looks At Roles Of Mortgage Servicers and MERS In Eaton v. FNMA Arguments

by Rich Vetstein on October 3, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Update (6/22/12): SJC Issues Final Opinion (click to read)

I just finished watching the oral arguments in the SJC case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, The webcast should be up soon on the SJC Website. You can read the briefs in the case here.

As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the very important question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. If the SJC rules against lenders, it will be another national headline story — potentially bigger than U.S. Bank v. Ibanez.

Quick Recap: Ultimately, the SJC will have to decide how old common law decided in the late 1800′s now applies to mortgages in the 21st century with securitization, servicers and MERS. Does the law need to be modernized? I think it’s time. Unlike the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, this one is much harder to handicap. So I’m not even going to try!

For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case, I’ll state them again.

Borrower Able To Stop Foreclosure

As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.

Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.

The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.

Pointed Questions During Oral Argument

The oral argument was pretty interesting with the majority of the justices’ questions centered around questions of the mortgage servicer’s authority to foreclose or enter into a loan modification, Fannie Mae’s role and the role of MERS. Here’s my running diary of the argument.

Fannie Mae Arguments

  • Attorney Richard Briansky, who did a solid job, represented the Fannie Mae side, and started first. Judge Gants asked whether there was any evidence that Ms. Eaton, the borrower, failed to pay insurance or real estate taxes to justify foreclosure  on other grounds? There was no evidence; purely breach of note, replied Briansky.
  • The justices raised a question of the authority of the signer of the mortgage assignment. The signer was a “Monica” who worked for Green Tree Servicing and had signatory authority for MERS. Of course, this is the robo-signing question which is being raised across the county. (Read our post on the high percentage of robo-signed documents found at the Essex Registry of Deeds here). The justices asked was she employee or MERS or Green Tree?  Dual roles. However, they agreed that this issue is not properly raised in this case.
  • Justice Cordy asked whether Green Tree, the servicer, was in a position to extinguish the debt? The answer was no. The loan proceeds are held in trust for note holder.
  • Justice Botsford was worried about the possibility of double liability where the note holder sues Eaton on note. Never been an issue, says Briansky.
  • Justice Lenk asked who determines whether or not to foreclose? Attorney Briansky said Green Tree, because it has been collecting payments and acts as servicer. Now the justices started exploring the contractual relationship between servicer and note holder. The discussed turned to the servicer’s authority for loan mods, etc.
  • Justice Botsford had questions over who could make important decisions under mortgage.
  • Justice Duffly asked about the status of MERS as nominee. It’s a “tripartite relationship,” explained Briansky. The justices seemed very skeptical of the MERS relationship.
  • Justice Ireland, citing the friend of the court brief, asked Briansky point blank whether Massachusetts law required unity of the note and mortgage holder at foreclosure. Briansky countered with argument that times have changed and current complex mortgage securitization requires a modernization of the law.
  • Justice Duffly pointed out that the proliferation of servicers and MERS has created a unique situation and is bad for consumers. She thinks that there is a disincentive for servicers to modify loans; that they make more money for foreclosure. An interesting point.
  • Justice Lenk asked a very good question: What would preclude Fannie Mae from holding the mortgage? I can tell you that as a matter of policy, Fannie Mae prefers not to hold mortgages themselves, instead letting the servicers do the “dirty work” of defaults and foreclosures.

That concluded the Fannie Mae side.

Eaton Arguments

Now for the Eaton side, Sam Levine, a Harvard Law student, argued under a SJC Rule permitting third year law students to argue in court. What a thrill it must have been for a law student who hasn’t even passed the Bar, to be arguing a major case in front of the SJC. However, his inexperienced showed at times, as he often slipped into prepared remarks when the justices where looking for an answer far more specific. But all in all, the kid did OK for not even being a real lawyer yet.

  • The justices ask about all the lower court and bankruptcy court decisions holding that you don’t need pure unity of note holder and mortgage holder to foreclose. Levine stood his ground on the older cases holding that this isn’t the law. The justices will have to grapple with whether the law needs to be modernized.
  • Justice Gants asked what’s wrong with an agent acting as servicer? Levine said for servicing it’s fine, but for foreclosure, the principal must foreclose.
  • There was an extended discussion over the standard MERS mortgage form as to MERS’ authority to invoke power of sale and foreclose. The justices appeared confused as to who has the right to invoke the power of sale and foreclose. Does MERS or does the lender, or both? And who is MERS’ successors and assigns?
  • Justice Cordy asked hasn’t borrower agreed in the mortgage that MERS can foreclose? Didn’t she waive any common law right that the note holder and mortgage holder be united for foreclosure. Good question.
  • Justice Lenk asked that if Fannie Mae had foreclosed, everything would have been fine. That’s ultimately true.
  • Justices Cordy and Spina were definitely getting frustrated with the simple fact that Eaton simply didn’t pay mortgage. Look for them to vote to reverse the lower court opinion in this case.

What’s Next?

The SJC will release a final opinion within 120 days or so. A lot of the questioning centered on side issues not squarely relevant in the case. The question in the case is simply whether a foreclosing lender must hold both the note and mortgage at foreclosure. Clearly, the justices have been reading the press reports about the foreclosure crisis and are trying to be responsive to it. But they have to decide cases based on the facts before them. Again, I’m not going to try to handicap this one, but I have a feeling it will be a close decision with concurring and dissenting opinions. If the SJC rules against lenders, it will be another national headline story, rest assured.

_______________________________________________________

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

{ 12 comments }

SJC To Hear Oral Arguments In Eaton v. FNMA On Monday

by Rich Vetstein on September 30, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Updated: Click Here For Our Oral Argument Recap

Just a reminder to those following the important SJC case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n — oral arguments will be held on Monday, October 3rd, starting at 9am. You can view the oral argument live via webcast through the SJC Website. You can read the briefs in the case here. Interestingly, one of the foremost commentators on the mortgage meltdown, Adam Levitin of Georgetown Law, has filed his own friend of the court brief.

As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court will consider the “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases — whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts.

Look for a new blog post on Tuesday after I watch the arguments.

~Rich

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney. He has handles many foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.

{ 1 comment }

SJC Expands Scope Of Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties Act

by Rich Vetstein on September 12, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis

FNMA v. Nunez: Tenant Foreclosure Act Applied Retroactively

On September 6, 2011, in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez (embedded below), the Supreme Judicial Court considered for the first time the 13-month-old “Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties” Act which protects tenants living in foreclosed properties from eviction in certain circumstances. The issue was whether the Act applied retroactively, and the court answered “yes,” applying it “to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act’s effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date.”

Summary Of Act

The Act, passed in August 2010 and now codified in a new Mass. General Laws Chapter 186A, bans institutional lenders (not private parties) who own foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without “just cause.” What this means in plain English is that foreclosing lenders such as Fannie Mae cannot evict tenants of foreclosed properties unless they stop paying rent or commit serious lease violations such as illegal activity on the premises.

Loophole: Private Purchasers

There is a huge loophole in the Act however. It does not apply to private individuals who purchase properties at foreclosure. They are free to evict tenants for any reason. But, they must provide tenants with at least 90 day notice to move, and the tenant retains the right to ask for more time to leave in any eviction legal proceeding.

Impact: Slow Down In Sales of Foreclosed Properties

The impact of this ruling will be to expand the number of tenants who will be protected from eviction when their apartments fall into foreclosure. It will also slow down the pace of selling off REO and foreclosed properties to individual owners and investors who will now inherit tenants with expanded occupancy rights in foreclosed properties.

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled over 500 eviction cases in the District and Housing Courts. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts landlord-tenant dispute.

 

 

FNMA v. Nunez

{ 0 comments }

SJC To Consider “Produce The Note” Foreclosure Defense In MERS Mortgage Case

by Rich Vetstein on September 8, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

Update: Update (6/22/12): SJC Issues Final Opinion (click to read)

SJC Orders Additional Briefing On Potential Impact of Ruling (1/6/12)

Oral Argument Analysis (10/3/11)

Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?

In a rare “sua sponte” (on their own) direct appellate review, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear an appeal considering the controversial “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases and whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts.

This could be a very important decision — potentially as important as the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case issued in the spring. A ruling against the lenders could expose a gaping and fatal legal black hole with many foreclosure-bound mortgages that were hastily bundled and sold to Wall Street during the real estate boom years. A rejection of the borrower’s arguments as recently made by a bankruptcy judge in Worcester, however, could significantly reduce some MERS induced anxiety and heartburn presently being experienced by lenders and foreclosure attorneys.

The case is Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), SJC-11041. The court will hear arguments in October, with a decision coming several months later. The court is also seeking amicus, or friend of the court, briefs from interested parties.

Where’s The Note?

As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.

Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.

The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a well-reasoned 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.

Potential Impacts Far and Wide

As I mentioned before, a ruling that foreclosing lenders must produce both the note and mortgage held by the same entity would drastically alter existing foreclosure practice in Massachusetts, and may open existing foreclosures to legal challenge. Although I don’t practice in foreclosures, I do know that rarely, if ever, are properly endorsed and assigned promissory notes in the hands of lenders when they foreclose. As with this case, they are typically endorsed in blank, that is, to no one, and in storage somewhere in New Jersey or Ohio held by a loan servicer. In fact, obtaining such promissory notes from lenders can be nearly impossible. They are often lost, missing pages, or destroyed.

This case, which is typical, illustrates the problem with the entire system. According to Fannie Mae’s brief, after the loan funded, the note was indorsed in blank and allegedly transferred to Fannie Mae. How does an entity as sophisticated as Fannie Mae purchase a loan without getting the promissory note properly indorsed and assigned to it? God only knows. So the best Fannie could do was produce a copy of the note indorsed to no one. That’s just great…

The mortgage took a different path along the securitization trail. This was a MERS mortgage, so it was originally granted to MERS, the electronic registry who admittedly acts only as a “nominee” and holds no financial stake in the loan. A Mass. bankruptcy court judge recently voided the foreclosure of a MERS mortgage for some of these reasons. Now while the paper is held by Fannie Mae, the mortgage supposedly gets assigned to Green Tree, the loan servicer, which like MERS has no financial stake in the loan. Green Tree then conducts the foreclosure sale, although it has no real financial interest in the loan–that remains with Fannie Mae. Now it doesn’t take a Louis Brandeis to ask, why didn’t the mortgage get assigned to Fannie Mae, and why didn’t Fannie Mae conduct the foreclosure sale since it held all the financial cards in this transaction? I would love someone to explain this to me because I don’t get it, and I’m not the only one. At this point, the whole system is FUBAR.

Of course, a favorable ruling for lenders would preserve the status quo and business-as-usual atmosphere for foreclosures in Massachusetts, while upholding the effectiveness of the MERS mortgage. The SJC wasn’t afraid to drop a bombshell in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. Eaton v. Fannie Mae may be next. At the very least, the SJC joins a steady stream of jurists who have concerns about the way in which foreclosures are being conducted in a post-subprime world. When the decision comes down, I’ll be on it!

_______________________________________________________

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

{ 13 comments }

Mass. Bankruptcy Judge Voids Foreclosure Of MERS Mortgage

by Rich Vetstein on August 23, 2011

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

Judge Tells Lenders You Can’t Have Your MERS Cake & Eat It Too

“The sophisticated financial minds who wrought the MERS regime sought to simplify the process of repeatedly transferring mortgage loans by obviating the need and expense of recording mortgage assignments with each transfer. No doubt they failed to consider the possibility of a collapse of the residential real estate market, the ensuing flood of foreclosures and the intervention of state and federal courts.”

–Judge Melvin S. Hoffman, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge for Massachusetts, In Re. Schwartz, Aug. 22, 2011

Coming off a ruling (In re. Marron) that the MERS mortgage registration system does not run afoul of Massachusetts law, the same jurist, Bankruptcy Court Judge Melvin Hoffman, on Monday issued a ruling voiding a MERS-held mortgage which fell victim to sloppy paperwork. As Banker & Tradesman reports, the case is potentially troubling for any MERS held mortgage in default. The case is In Re. Schwartz and is embedded below.

Debtor Challenges Foreclosure Of Securitized Mortgage

During her bankruptcy proceeding, the debtor, Sima Schwartz, challenged the May 24, 2006 foreclosure of her Worcester home by Deutsche Bank. She asserted that under the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court earlier in the year, Deutsche did not own the mortgage on the property when it first started the foreclosure process.

The “lender” on her original mortgage was Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), as nominee for First NLC. Many housing advocates have criticized MERS’ role in the foreclosure crisis, with the New York Times weighing in most recently. The mortgage loan was securitized and subsequently transferred at least 3 times, ultimately winding up held by Deutsche Bank. No assignments of mortgage were recorded with the registry of deeds until a day before the foreclosure sale on May 23, 2006. That assignment was executed by Liquenda Allotey, one of the hundreds of deputized vice presidents of MERS, and an alleged “robo-signer” for Lender Processing Service (LPS) which has come under fire for document irregularities. The assignment ran to Deutsche Bank, which completed the foreclosure sale on May 24, bid its mortgage debt and purchased the property.

There was no dispute that under the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, the late-filed mortgage assignment rendered the foreclosure defective unless Deutsche could establish its ownership of the mortgage loan when the foreclosure process started. During the trial, Deutsche submitted all the various agreements documenting the securitization process including the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA), loan purchase agreement, bill of sale and custodial log.

Judge: Lenders Can’t Have Their MERS Cake And Eat It Too

Critically, as the judge noted, the PSA provided that for a MERS mortgage such as this, assignments of mortgages did not have to be prepared or delivered to the buyer of the loans. As is endemic with most securitized mortgages, the participants in the securitization did not deliver and record any assignments documenting such transfers, instead, relying on the internal MERS registration system, which is out of the public records view. Throwing this provision back in the lenders’ faces, the judge basically said “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” — rendering his ruling that the mortgage itself (as opposed to the underlying loan) was never transferred through the securitization system from entity A, B, C, to Deutsche Bank, and that MERS had always held, and never relinquished, “legal title” to the mortgage. Accordingly, the judge held, Deutsche Bank was never the owner of the mortgage in the first place, could not foreclose in its name, and its foreclosure sale was null and void.

Impact: Are Foreclosures Of MERS Mortgages Now Open To Challenge?

I’m not sure what’s going to happen with Ms. Schwartz’s home. She’s been living in it since 2006 probably mortgage/rent free! Certainly, MERS could (and should have) started a second foreclosure and done it the right way. I’m perplexed why Deutsche and MERS kept fighting this case in court. As for the broader implications, it’s still unclear as to the effect on past and current foreclosures. One this is for certain, the ruling is yet another example of the legal fallout from the deficiencies in the MERS system.

Lastly, while I don’t claim to be a mortgage securitization expert, if the mortgage was not assigned/transferred properly and if it is MERS that holds legal title, then there is a mortgage backed security investor somewhere who THINKS he owns this mortgage but, in fact, does not. Even if MERS wanted to transfer the mortgage to the relevant trust or foreclose, sell the property and transfer cash, they may not be able to for legal and tax reasons. Now multiply by a million. So how many mortgage backed securities are missing how many mortgages? Are there mortgage backed securities out there that don’t actually own ANY mortgages? If someone sells a “mortgage backed” security that doesn’t legally own the mortgages in question, hasn’t that someone committed fraud? And furthermore, how the hell do we clean this up?

_______________________________________________________

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

 

In Re Schwartz

{ 20 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on August 17, 2011

in Construction Law, Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Mortgage Crisis

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

MERS Case Reaches U.S. Supreme Court

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

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

Old Landfill Found Under New Subdivision

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

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

Fannie Mae Abusing Foreclosure Powers?

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

{ 0 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on June 29, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is This Audit Flawed Though?

Now, a few observations about this “audit.”

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

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

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

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

{ 4 comments }

60 Minutes Segment On Foreclosure Paperwork Mess & Defective Titles

by Rich Vetstein on April 4, 2011

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

Last night, 60 Minutes did a compelling segment — Mortgage Paperwork Mess: Next Housing Shock? — on an important issue we’ve been covering here on the Blog . The segment details rampant forgeries by $10/hour bank “vice-presidents” and the pervasive robo-signing of bogus mortgage documents by “document mills” and “foreclosure factories.”

We’ve been particularly concerned about the thousands of Massachusetts residents who purchased foreclosed properties which are now left with defective titles due to the various errors and missteps of foreclosing lenders and their foreclosure attorneys. In the 60 Minutes segment, the new head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair, proposes a federal “Superfund” to clean up this colossal mess. That’s certainly a good idea. Innocent home buyers shouldn’t have to bear the burden of all the mistakes and shortcuts made by a banking industry too eager to process foreclosures at any cost.

More Coverage:

U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case

Defective Foreclosure Titles In Massachusetts: What’s Next?

 

{ 0 comments }

Oh My, Oh MERS! NY Bankruptcy Judge Rules That Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) Lacks Right To Assign Mortgages

by Rich Vetstein on February 15, 2011

in Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

First the robo-signing controversy. Then the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling. Now the next bombshell ruling in the foreclosure mess has just come down from a New York federal bankruptcy judge.

The case is In Re Agard (click here to download), and essentially throws a huge monkey wrench into a hugely important cog of the entire U.S. mortgage market, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. known as MERS.

What Is MERS?

MERS, even for many seasoned real estate professionals, is the most important entity you’ve never heard of. In the mid-1990s, mortgage bankers created MERS to facilitate the complex mortgage securitization system where hundreds of thousands of mortgage loans were (and still are) packaged and bundled as securities for sale on Wall Street. Each mortgage entered into the MERS system has a unique 18 digit Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) used to track a mortgage loan throughout its life, from origination to securitization to payoff or foreclosure. The MERS system was vital to the proliferation of the $10 trillion U.S. residential securitization mortgage market.

Critics say that the decision to create MERS was driven, in large part, to avoid paying recording fees charged by county registry of deeds which required that all mortgage transfers and assignments be properly recorded and indexed in publicly available registries of deeds. Thus, MERS was designed essentially as a privately run, national registry of deeds under which MERS would act as the record “owner” and depository of all mortgages participating in the system, while the mortgage notes and loans themselves were freely bought and sold on the secondary market. About 50% of all U.S. mortgages participate in the MERS system.

The Ruling: MERS Cannot Legally Transfer & Assign Mortgages

Bankruptcy court judge Robert E. Grossman’s ruling is a bombshell and appears to be the first federal ruling holding that MERS cannot legally do what it was set up to do: transfer and assign mortgages through its electronic registry. Judge Grossman ruled that the foreclosing lender had to show that it owned both the note and the mortgage — rejecting the popular theory that the “note-follows-the-mortgage” — and there was no evidence that it held the note. “By MERS’s own account, the note in this case was transferred among its members, while the mortgage remained in MERS’s name,” Grossman wrote. “MERS admits that the very foundation of its business model as described herein requires that the note and mortgage travel on divergent paths.”

The judge found that the MERS membership agreement wasn’t enough to assign the mortgage and that to do so the lender would have to give power of attorney or similar authority to MERS. MERS’s membership rules don’t create “an agency or nominee relationship” and don’t clearly grant MERS authority to take any action with respect to mortgages, including transferring them, Grossman wrote. Because the interests at issue concern “real property” — land and buildings — under state law, any transfer has to be in writing, which isn’t done under the MERS system, he said.

The judge concluded, rather harshly, that “MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best.”

Impact of the Decision

The impact of this ruling may be quite muted. First the ruling is “dicta” which means that the ruling didn’t have much to do with the case since the judge upheld the validity of the foreclosure. Second, this ruling comes from the lowest level of the federal bankruptcy court system in New York, and will surely be appealed to a federal appeals court, and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other courts have ruled in favor of MERS on the same issues, as well. The ruling could be overturned ultimately–if it gets there. Third, Congress and state legislatures could intervene, and bless what MERS has been doing for the past decade. The judge invited lawmakers to do just that.

Thus, it’s hard to say how much, if any, impact this ruling with have in other states or nationally. Plus, any easy fix would appear to be for MERS and its lender partners to go back, and record their mortgage assignments and pay the recording fees due.

That said, the decision definitely sends a shot across the bows of MERS and its partners (Fannie and Freddie), and should be watched closely by industry experts.

More Coverage

Wall Street Journal

Bloomberg News

{ 5 comments }

More U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Foreclosure Talk: VIDEO

by Rich Vetstein on February 9, 2011

in Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Title Defects

I put together my first YouTube video, and thought a good topic would be the impact of the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case on the foreclosure and REO market. The case underscores the necessity of obtaining an owner’s policy of title insurance for any REO transaction, and really any conventional transaction for that matter. Appreciate any feedback, good or bad. I’m no Ryan Seacrest obviously!

{ 2 comments }

Online Seminar: The Massachusetts Ibanez Decision, Its Ruling and Implications For the Industry, Attorneys & Consumers

by Rich Vetstein on February 3, 2011

in Foreclosure, Mortgage Crisis

I am honored to be a panelist — along with the lawyers who prevailed in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case –in an upcoming online seminar on February 12 and 15. Here are the details:

The Massachusetts Ibanez Decision:
The Ruling and its Implications for the Industry, the Practitioner and the Consumer

Saturday, February 12th, 2011
12:00 PM Eastern Time		 and Tuesday, February 15th, 2011
8:00 PM Eastern Time

Hear from the attorneys and experts directly involved in the recent landmark Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court decision that shook up the foreclosure defense landscape.

A virtual panel discussion followed by audience Q&A.

O. Max Gardner III
O. Max Gardner III
www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com

Max is recognized as one of the leading lawyers in America in the area of Predatory Mortgage Servicing and the standing of Mortgage Servicers in consumer bankruptcy cases. His position on the front lines of the war against predatory lenders and mortgage servicers has captured the attention of ABC News Nightline, CNN, Business Week, The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other news outlets across the country.

**Only participating in the event on Saturday, February 12 at 12:00 PM EST
Marie McDonnell
Marie McDonnell
www.mcdonnellanalytics.com

Marie McDonnell is the President of McDonnell Property Analytics, Inc., a foreclosure defense training and support services company. Her Amicus Brief is widely cited as a key factor in the Ibanez decision. Marie has been a nationally recognized mortgage auditing and forensics expert since 1987.
Jamie Ranney
Jamie Ranney
www.nantucketlaw.pro

Jamie is one of the leading foreclosure defense lawyers in Massachusetts, with a current caseload of approximately 85 cases. He has worked closely with Glenn F. Russell, Jr., and Thomas B. Vawter to develop innovative foreclosure defense strategies, including challenging a foreclosing bank’s standing in Servicemembers cases in the Massachusetts Land Court and in raising standing challenges to post-foreclosure evictions.
Glenn Russell
Glenn F. Russell, Jr.
www.foreclosuresinmass.com

Glenn is a solo practitioner based in Fall River, Massachusetts, whose practice is 100% devoted to the defense of mortgage foreclosure. Attorney Russell represented Mark and Tammy LaRace in the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq
www.massrealestatelawblog.com

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is the creator and principal author of the Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog. Rich is a nationally recognized real estate attorney, having written extensively on real estate legal issues and been featured or quoted by the Boston Globe, Bloomberg News, Financial Times, Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, and Banker & Tradesman. Rich was recently selected as one of Inman News’ Top 100 Most Influential in Real Estate.

**Only participating in the event on Tuesday, February 15 at 8:00 PM EST

Click Here for the Registration Page

This should be a fantastic panel discussion for anyone who is interested in the impact of the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision.

{ 1 comment }

A New Chapter M for Mortgage Bankruptcy?

by Rich Vetstein on February 2, 2011

in Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, Mortgage Crisis, Title Defects

I recently came across a very provocative and interesting idea to address the foreclosure and bankruptcy crisis: a new Chapter M for Mortgage bankruptcy. As described on FireDogLake:

“Prof. Adam Levitin has proposed this with his Chapter M for Mortgage bankruptcy. It would remove foreclosure actions from state court to federal bankruptcy court. Successful petitions can be offered a standardized pre-packaged bankruptcy plan. The plan would be based on HAMP modification guidelines (interest rate reduction to achieve 31% DTI goal, but without federal funding) plus cramdown to address negative equity.

We can make this fair on the backend. If the homeowner redefaults we can speed up the foreclosure process. It wouldn’t affect non-mortgage lenders. It is fast-tracked relative to traditional Chapter 13. It can have clawback mechanisms to address potential future appreciation.

And going through the process can give the lender clean title. Because there’s this whole issue of who owns what in the securitization chain which is a few court cases away from putting our financial system over a cliff. And the best feature is that it has no cost to the federal government. Like other smart policy, it builds off already existing infrastructure, so it can be started immediately using existing courts and Chapter 7 panel trustees for sales.”

Any solution which can simultaneously address banks’ unwillingness to offer loan modifications to otherwise qualified distressed homeowners and the litany of title problems created in the wake of cases like U.S. Bank v. Ibanez should be seriously considered. The recent foreclosure legislation proposed by Secretary of State Bill Galvin and Attorney General Martha Coakley contains mandates following these ideas. Galvin’s would create a special court to deal with Ibanez issues, and Coakley’s requires loan modifications for certain sub-prime loans before foreclosure.

We certainly need out of the box thinking to deal with these problems. What are your thoughts?

{ 1 comment }

Late To The Party? More Foreclosure Legislation Filed In Massachusetts

by Rich Vetstein on January 28, 2011

in Foreclosure, Mortgage Crisis

You knew this was coming. The politicians smell a big political opportunity with the foreclosure mess in Massachusetts, and are filing legislation left and right.

The latest is legislation filed by State Senator Karen Spilka and Attorney General Martha Coakley mandating loan modifications in certain circumstances. Specifically, the loan modification legislation requires creditors to take “commercially reasonable efforts” to avoid foreclosure upon certain sub-prime loans. The legislation also provides a safe harbor for creditors to comply with this requirement of commercial reasonableness.

The legislation also addresses problems with foreclosures highlighted in the recent decision by the Massachusetts SJC, U.S. Bank v. Ibanez by prohibiting foreclosures where creditors lack the documents supporting their purported right to foreclose, and prohibits passing on certain fees and costs to homeowners.  Specifically, this legislation:

  • Codifies the recent SJC decision in Ibanez by requiring a creditor commencing foreclosure to show it is the current legal holder of record of the mortgage. The bill also forbids misrepresentations to courts concerning holder status;
  • Prohibits passing on to third parties the costs of remedying prior improper foreclosures or absence of recorded assignments;
  • Prohibits “junk fees” (for goods or services not performed) tacked on during foreclosure and prohibits bribes, referral and similar fees for foreclosure business; and
  • Requires recording of assignment establishing the creditor as present holder of the mortgage before it can foreclose on the property.

A violation of this legislation would constitute a violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A which carries triple damages and attorneys fees.

For more information, here is the announcement from Sen. Spilka’s office.

{ 2 comments }

Secretary of State Galvin Files Legislation To Resolve Faulty Foreclosures After U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Ruling

by Rich Vetstein on January 27, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

From the Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle Tribune:

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin filed legislation last Friday to give the Land Court authority to create a special master to deal with foreclosures that may have occurred improperly. Anyone seeking to challenge the legitimacy of a foreclosure would have one year to file a lawsuit in the court.

Galvin’s bill follows a Supreme Judicial Court decision in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, upholding a 2009 Land Court ruling that a bank or lender must have proper documentation proving it holds a title before foreclosing on a home.

“It’s opened the door to anyone that wants to question a foreclosure that’s already moved forward,” Galvin said of the decision. As the secretary of state, Galvin is the state’s register of deeds. Galvin’s bill will go to the Legislature for debate.

The special court could play host to homeowners who purchased a foreclosed home staking claim against a former homeowner who may have faced an improper foreclosure. Galvin pointed out that about 40,000 foreclosures have taken place in Massachusetts since 2006.

“I doubt that half of them are going to be involved in this,” Galvin said. “I don’t know if it’s 5 percent. But if it’s 5 percent, that’s 2,000 properties.”

Depending on the numbers of foreclosure affected, this may be a step in the right direction–as long as homeowners are able to obtain clear title and get reimbursement of any out of pocket expenses dealing with a problem they didn’t create. As with any special court or master, there’s always a short statute of limitations imposed. So we’ll keep an eye out on that.

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →