One 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).
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.
Electronic recording (e-recording) of deeds, mortgages and other title instruments has been available in Massachusetts for almost 5 years now, and is finally gaining widespread acceptance within the conveyancing community. E-recording is now fully operational in Berkshire, Bristol, Essex, Hampden, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Worcester North and South registries of deeds. (Suffolk, please hurry up!). Legislation has recently been filed to require that all registries have electronic recording capabilities by July 2014. (Thank you Attorney Hugh Fitzpatrick, a newly appointed member of the Registry of Deeds Modernization and Efficiency Commission, for your efforts!).
E-recording is proving to be less expensive and faster than the traditional method of recording by sending a title examiner down to the registry of deeds. It also eliminates the need to fight traffic and hold closings at Cambridge or other hard-to-get-to registries.
Indeed, if we have the deed, mortgage and homestead signed at the beginning of the closing, we can be “on record” halfway through the closing! Music to seller, buyer and Realtor’s ears…
Scan original document to create an electronic image (pdf)
Log on to the secure website and enter data about the document and upload the document image
Perform a quick online title run-down to ensure no title issues have arisen since the first title exam
Press “send to the registry” button
The registry verifies the quality of the image and the accuracy of your data
Once accepted by the registry, the document is official on record with recording data and document image immediately available on the registry website
The filer immediately gets an electronic receipt with all recording information along with an electronic copy of the recorded document.
Fees are paid by electronic funds transfer from the closing attorney, and we can avoid the usual $35 rundown fee. E-recording fees run about $4-5 per document.
E-recording is legal and binding, and accepted by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and virtually every major lender. It is a major benefit to all parties involved with a real estate closing, and I’m well-versed in how to use the system to ensure a faster and more convenient closing. Please contact me at [email protected] for more information.
With more heavy, wet snow in the forecast and roofs already covered in snow, the risk of roof collapse and ice dams remains very high. The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) warns that fluffy snow piled high on roofs can act as a sponge, absorbing rain and adding additional stress to structures.
Relatively flat roofs are particularly vulnerable, MEMA says. In other cases, roof ice dams have formed causing water build-up, leading to interior damage. These conditions can accelerate the snowmelt.
Prevention of Roof Collapse
Be on the alert for large accumulating snow build-up or snowdrifts.
If roof snow can be removed with the use of a snow rake (available at most hardware stores), do so. Try to avoid working from ladders, as ladder rungs tend to ice up, snow and ice collect on boot soles, and metal ladders and snow rakes conduct electricity if they come into contact with a power line.
Flat roofs can be shoveled clear, but only if it is determined that the roof is safe to stand upon. Exercise care when on the roof to avoid potentially dangerous falls.
Flat roof drainage systems should be kept clear to minimize the risk of excess roof ponding in the event of subsequent heavy rainfall or melting.
Large icicles can form on roof overhangs, but do not necessarily mean ice damming is occurring. Icicles overhanging walkways can be dangerous and should be carefully removed.
All of the above actions should only be performed by able-bodied adults. The snow is heavy, and roofs and other surfaces may be slippery.
Protective headgear and eye protection is recommended.
Ice Dam Treatment & Prevention
Try to remove snow from the roof but only if it can be done safely. A roof rake or push broom can be used but may cause damage to the shingles. If it’s not possible to remove the snow safely, call a professional like I did.
Chisel grooves into the dam to allow the water behind it to drain off. This is a good emergency measure, especially if rain or a sudden thaw is coming. Be careful not to damage those shingles!
Fill an old pair of your wife’s pantyhose with calcium chloride snow melt and lay it across the dam. I’m not kidding! I did this over the weekend and it seemed to work. It will help to melt the dam and also keep that area of the roof clear. DO NOT USE ROCK SALT! It will stain the roof and siding. It is best for small dams or prevention. It’s also a good idea to scrape the snow off the roof first.
To prevent ice dams in the longer term, keeping warm air from escaping into the attic is the first course of action. In addition to helping resolve ice dam issues, it will result in a more comfortable and less expensive to heat home.
Ice Dam Insurance Coverage
Very few insurance policies cover ice dam or snow removal from your roof or anywhere else on your property for that matter. However, interior or exterior damage caused by an ice dam or roof collapse is typically covered. As with any insurance claim, call the claims department immediately and take photos of the damage.
The Boston City Council and Mayor Menino’s Office have passed a sweeping new rental property registration and inspection ordinance which is now effective for the year 2013. The new ordinance requires, among other things, that all rental property owners register with the Inspectional Services Department (ISD), and are subject to inspections every 5 years. Details of the new ordinance are summarized below.
Who is covered?
All rental property owners, regardless of state residence, must register their rental properties with ISD. This also includes condominium units which are rented out. Excluded from the inspection requirements (but not the registration requirements) are owner-occupied buildings containing no more than 6 units, licensed lodging houses, government owned or operated housing.
What are my registration obligations?
Landlords are required to register with ISD no later than July 1 of each year. A fee of $25/unit will be charged. All non-resident owners must designate a Boston-based resident agent to accept service of process on the owner’s behalf. You can now register online at Cityofboston.gov or download an application from the same site. The City has also posted a Frequently Asked Questions Page here.
When will my rental property get inspected?
ISD will inspect rental properties at least once every 5 years. ISD intends to first inspect the “problem” properties which have a history of code violations. Landlords will receive a notice from ISD about the inspection. Landlords have the option of having an outside “authorized inspector” perform the inspection at the owner’s expense. Annual inspections conducted by the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) and similar government programs will be accepted by ISD. For most buildings, the inspection fee is $75 for the first two units, and $50/unit thereafter.
Are there any new signage requirements?
Yes. A sign of not less than 20 square inches must be posted adjacent to the building’s mailboxes or other conspicuous location. The sign must contain the contact information of the landlord and property manager, if any.
My property has been cited for violations in the past. Will this be a problem?
It could be. The new ordinance has a new classification for “Problem Property” if:
the police have been called to the property at least 4 times in one year; or
4 or more noise complaints; or
4 or more ISD complaints for unsanitary conditions/code violations
Problem Properties must be inspected every year and the owner must submit a management plan to address the issues.
How do I coordinate the inspection with my tenants?
A tenant is entitled to “reasonable advance notice” before an inspection. If access is denied, the landlord must notify ISD within 7 days, and if ISD verifies same, the landlord will be exempted from inspection for 1 year. Tenants are entitled to a copy of all inspection reports.
I am buying a rental property. By when does the new owner need to register?
ISD must be notified of the sale of any rental property 30 days after the closing, and the new owner must register with ISD within this 30 day window. Within 90 days of closing, the new owner must complete any pending inspection or submit an application for approval of an alternative inspection plan.
We 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.
Federal 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.
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.
Controversial New Internet Practice Raises Confidentiality Concerns & Realtor® Scorn
The internet based real estate brokerage company, Redfin, is now arming buyers and sellers with insight into the negotiations that take place when the firm’s clients submit winning — and losing — offers to buy a home. On its heavily trafficked website, the Seattle-based brokerage is now displaying “Offer Insights” detailing intimate details of negotiations surrounding offers that Redfin agents submit on listings. Redfin claims that buyers can opt out of the program, and no addresses are revealed before closing. (But, addresses are shown for sold properties).
Here is an example for two properties in Quincy, one where an offer was accepted and one where it was rejected:
Confidentiality & Ethical Concerns?
From a strategic and marketing perspective, this new idea is certainly creative, as it gives Redfin agents and their potential clients a competitive advantage over other agents and aids in providing transparency in the marketplace. However, posting details about private contractual negotiations raises some thorny legal and ethical concerns, and many non-Redfin listing agents are crying foul.
Some Realtors assert that the details of offer negotiations are private and confidential, and therefore, cannot be disclosed without the consent of all parties to the transaction, especially the seller. I don’t necessarily buy into that. I’m not aware of any legal confidentiality protection given to private contract negotiations — indeed they are 100% discoverable in litigation, at least in Massachusetts. A buyer and seller are in an adversarial position, so there is no special legal relationship between them warranting a duty to keep negotiations private.
I can see why a seller would be very upset to find out that the juicy details of negotiations are posted on the internet for the world to see. A seller may certainly want to know this before entertaining a Redfin offer. Moreover, a seller (and a creative attorney) could manufacture a tortious interference claim if a Redfin Offer Insight proves to interfere with a potential deal with another party. That’s a lawsuit for another day…
MLS Rules and NAR Code of Ethics
Some Realtors say that the Redfin practice violates Multiple Listing Service rules and the NAR Code of Ethics. Multiple listing services have rules for commenting on sites which contain MLS information. A seller may instruct her listing agent to disallow public comments on listings. A Redfin buyer’s agent could be in violation of MLS rules if he leaves remarks about the house or negotiation, according to some non-Redfin agents. It will be up to the particular MLS to enforce its own rules against agents; they have no legal effect per se.
The National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics prohibits Realtors from using confidential information of clients for the Realtor’s advantage or the advantage of third parties unless the clients consent after full disclosure. The catch is that “confidential information” is defined as whatever state law says is confidential. As I said earlier, private contract negotiations are not legally confidential in Mass., so I’m doubtful this would apply.
In sum, the Redfin Offer Insight feature may well be legal, but tight-walks through the ethical rules governing MLS’s and Realtors. As long as they don’t disclose names or property addresses until the deal closes, I think it’s ok legally (in Massachusetts), and I do appreciate giving buyers as much market information as possible. On the flip side, it may put non-Redfin listing agents at a competitive disadvantage. Maybe that’s why they are crying foul?
Agents, what are your thoughts? Post your comments below.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney who writes frequently about legal issues facing the real estate industry. He can be reached at [email protected].
A Simple Email Disclaimer Cannot Hurt & Can Only Help
Boilerplate email disclaimers at the bottom of messages are so ubiquitous that most of us hardly notice them anymore. They certainly take up a lot of text space and can be annoying to some, but are they legally effective or just plain toothless?
In the real estate context, where Realtors and attorneys write in the language of contract everyday, I believe that a short and simple email disclaimer may help, and certainly cannot hurt, the sender (aside from annoying a snarky recipient or two). In this post, I will discuss a few common real estate situations where an email disclaimer could come into play, then give you the disclaimer that I use in my emails. Now I have my own disclaimer here: A court will determine each case individually, and there is no guarantee that any particular disclaimer will be effective in any given case.
Contract Negotiations
The most common situation where an email disclaimer could come into play is during real estate contract negotiations. For many agents and attorneys, e-mail has become the default mode of communication, replacing the telephone and the outdated fax. E-mail, however, can provide the “smoking gun” in litigation because it’s nearly impossible to delete permanently, and people tend to be more casual and less introspective before hitting “send.” And don’t get me started with texting, which is even worse.
Realtors must remember that under Massachusetts agency law they are agents with actual or apparent legal authority to bind their clients to the statements they make in emails and other forms of communication. Like the Miranda warnings given by the police, a real estate agents’ statements “can and will be used against them in a court of law.” The same is true for attorneys.
A case in point: In the recent well-publicized case of Feldberg v. Coxall, a Massachusetts judge ruled that a series of e-mail exchanges between the buyer and seller’s attorney, the last one attaching a revised, but unsigned, offer to purchase, could create a binding contract even though no formal written agreement was ever signed. This is also one of the first cases applying the new Massachusetts E-Sign law to preliminary negotiations in real estate deals. There have been cases in other jurisdictions holding that e-mails can result in a binding contract even though the parties may have assumed otherwise.
Practice Pointer:
“Emails sent or received shall neither constitute acceptance of conducting transactions via electronic means nor shall create a binding contract in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.”
This is the new email disclaimer that I’ve formulated after the Feldberg ruling. It does two things. First, it provides that only a fully signed contract can bind the parties. Second, it attempts to counter the presumption in the E-sign Act of conducting the transaction electronically via email. It has not been tested in court yet, but again, aside from taking up some pixel space, it can’t hurt. Now remember, this type of disclaimer would favor a selling/listing agent, but not necessarily a buyer’s agent, because the buyer’s agent would typically want to enforce preliminary negotiations. So, caveat emptor (buyer beware).
Practice Pointer: “Subject to final client review/approval”
Another best practice that Realtors and attorneys should get in the habit of doing is to write “subject to final client review and approval” or words to that effect in the midst of email contract negotiations and draft agreements being circulated. This could sway a court from determining that a binding deal was formed, and plus, it gives you an “out” in case a client has last minute changes.
Confidential Communications
Attorneys love to use long confidentiality disclaimers in their email. Do they work? Occasionally. Do they matter in real estate? I still think so.
First, the concept of legal confidentiality is limited to those situations governed by legal privilege. There is an attorney-client privilege between lawyers and their clients, obviously. While there is no legal privilege between a Realtor and his/her client as for communications solely between the agent and the client, the attorney client privilege will likely attach to emails and communications between and among the real estate agent, the attorney, and the client provided that legal advice is being given. But a particular email does not automatically get confidentiality protection simply because the attorney is copied on it. Some courts have pointed to email disclaimers as a factor in upholding the confidentiality. But there have been many court rulings where judges have discarded the disclaimers.
While attorneys should absolutely have a confidentiality email disclaimer, do Realtors need one? I say yes, because sometimes emails between attorney and client wind up in Realtors’ inboxes and sometimes they get forwarded on purpose or by mistake when they shouldn’t, and that could waive any privilege which is attached and become the “smoking gun.”
Practice Pointer:
I use this simple email disclaimer:
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.
The best practice, of course, is to cleanse and delete portions of any email with attorney-client or confidential information before forwarding. And of course, THINK BEFORE YOU HIT SEND!
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney who writes frequently about legal issues facing the real estate industry. He can be reached at [email protected].
Court 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.
Triple Damage Penalty for Willful Cutting Of Neighbor’s Trees
Neighbors typically get really mad when you chop down their trees. Really mad….and it can get the guy with the chainsaw into a lot of legal trouble. Can you say “triple damages”?
First enacted in 1698, the Massachusetts illegal tree cutting law (General Laws chapter 242, section 7) provides for up to triple damages for the malicious cutting, trimming, or destroying of another’s trees:
A person who without license willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or otherwise destroys trees, timber, wood or underwood on the land of another shall be liable to the owner in tort for three times the amount of the damages assessed therefor; but if it is found that the defendant had good reason to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or that he was otherwise lawfully authorized to do the acts complained of, he shall be liable for single damages only.
That said, I always advise property owners who intend to cut trees near boundary lines to consult a survey or plot plan to ensure that the trees are not on their neighbor’s land.
Measure of Damages: Restoration Cost Value
The measure of damages for those harmed by the willful cutting of trees varies from case to case. The most common measure of damages is either the value of the timber cut, restoration cost, or the resulting diminution in value of the property. A claimant is entitled to assert a claim for either value, whichever is highest.
Where the trees cut are tall, hard to replace or have a particular function like screening, or all the above, it is wise to engage a certified arborist to perform a comprehensive restoration cost analysis. The restoration cost analysis takes into account the aesthetics, functionality, age, height, girth, and species of the trees, and formulates a restoration value for the replacement of the removed trees. The method, known as cost-of-cure, involves determining the cost of planting trees and the estimated time for the replacement trees to grow to the size of the destroyed trees (years to parity).
In recent cases, Land Court judges have awarded $30,000 (tripled) for the cutting of 10 mature oak trees and nearly $45,000 (tripled) for the clearing of an 800 square foot woodland area which provided privacy screening. In both of these cases, expert arborist testimony was offered on the restoration cost of the cut trees. And who can forget the case where a Somerset family recovered a $150,000 wrongful death settlement after a women dropped dead after her neighbor wrongfully cut down a swath of sentimental trees.
Branches Over The Property Line
Under Massachusetts common law, you may remove branches of a neighbor’s tree extending over your property line as long as you don’t kill or damage the tree. Also, the neighbor has no liability for roots growing into your yard and causing damage. Massachusetts law does not allow a person to cross or enter a neighbor’s property for these purposes without the neighbor’s consent, nor to remove any branches or other vegetation within the confines of the neighbor’s property. This is the “Massachusetts Rule.”
Utility Tree Cutting
I’ve been reading about many recent disputes between property owners and utility companies (Wayland v. NStar) over tree cutting within utility easements. The law provides a public utility the right to remove or trim your tree if it interferes with the necessary and reasonable operation of the utility. Furthermore, the utility is required to perform tree trimming as part of its program to maintain reliable service for its customers. The National Electric Safety Code requires utilities to trim or remove trees growing near power lines that threaten to disrupt service. Proper and regular tree trimming helps prevent the danger and inconvenience of outages.
Lastly, landscapers and tree cutting companies should get a signed directive from the homeowners and an indemnification prior to cutting trees, as my fellow real estate attorney Chris McHallam points out.
If your trees have been wrongfully removed by a neighbor or if you have mistakenly removed trees, you should consult an experienced Massachusetts property law attorney. Valuation of trees is a science, rather complicated, and best left to the professionals.
___________________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who has handled numerous illegal tree cutting and boundary line disputes. Please contact him at [email protected] or 508.620.5352.
I wanted to share a recent article I authored for Realtor Magazine which was published in their January/February 2013 edition. The article is based on the Massachusetts court opinion in Feldberg v. Coxall, which I wrote about previously in this post. The court ruled that under recently passed electronic signature laws, emails between agents or attorneys could form a binding agreement even where there was no signed offer or written purchase and sale agreement. That’s a scary proposition for any agent! In the article, I suggest using a disclaimer in your email signatures to avoid having emails come back to bite you.
Legal 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. Ibanezthen 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.
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.
Under the new Massachusetts Domestic Violence Act recently signed into law, victims of sexual assault and stalking have the right to break their leases without significant financial penalty, have the landlord change their locks, and other important protections. The important provisions of the new law are as follows:
In order to break a lease, victims are required to provide notice to landlords that they were subject to a sexual assault or rape or under imminent threat of same within three (3) months of the incident
Landlords may request supporting documentation such as a police report or restraining order (which they must keep confidential).
Provided the tenant victim provides the proper notice, she will be relieve of financial liability for 30 days or one full rental period of rent, plus a return of any last month’s rent and security deposit.
The new law applies to anyone in the renter’s household.
Victims of sexual assault or stalking may require that the landlord change the unit’s locks within 48 hours at the tenant’s expense. If the landlord fails to act, the tenant may change the locks herself.
If the perpetrator of the sex crime or threat is a household member (i.e., spouse/boyfriend), the landlord may authorize the lock-out the perpetrator by changing the locks and withholding the new key.
Landlord’s who comply with the new law are generally absolved from liability to the perpetrator.
Noncompliance with the new law can result in damages equal to 3x the rental amount, plus payment of the tenant’s legal fees, which may be set off against any unpaid rent.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who frequently advises landlords on their legal obligations under Massachusetts landlord and tenant law.
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.
Yesterday my firm sponsored a very informative breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis of Banker & Tradesman and Boston.com who offered his predictions on the 2013 Massachusetts real estate market. The presentation included a lively question and answer session with the 40+ Realtors attending from all over the Greater Boston area. Here are some take-aways from the seminar (in no particular order):
“Bright and sunny early, but with a chance of severe job cuts later.” According to Mr. Van Voorhis, the Fiscal Cliff and upcoming Debt Reduction negotiations may be the biggest obstacle remaining in the path of a sustained real estate recovery. At stake are anywhere from 50,000 – 70,000 jobs in Massachusetts if the current slate of proposed budget cuts pass — to defense (i.e., Raytheon), health care, hospitals, and medical research, and tech sectors. If Massachusetts sees severe spending cuts by the federal government, the Route 128 corridor will be most impacted. The current impact is of “wait and see” with defense contractors and tech companies waiting to see how the federal budget battle with be resolved. They are putting new hires on hold and bracing for possible cuts. The fact that Congress will likely wait until the last minute to resolve these important issues doesn’t help the market any!
We’re back…. Median sale prices in many suburbs are now back to 2005 levels. Natick’s median price is $418,500, just off from its ’05 high. Needham has surpassed its ’05 record with a median price of $670,000. Burlington has broken its ’05 record at $407,000 median price. A major driver of the real estate recovery is the tech-sector, with Route 128 lab space expanding by 50%, or 3.5 million square feet of space, since 2007, enough to fill three Prudential Towers of space. Shire in Lexington and Genzyme in Framingham have led with way.
Tear-Downs On The Rise. Builders are doing tear-downs instead of large scale subdivisions, where financial risk is minimal. Early data indicates increasing market activity in tear-downs in Lexington, Newton and Needham, for example.
Low Inventory of Move-In-Ready Homes. The attending Realtors lamented about the dearth of move-in-ready homes in the sought after towns. As we know, there is hardly any buildable land in Massachusetts, and builders have not been doing subdivisions for several years. The agents say bidding wars are back in a big way for these properties, which creates problems with potentially low bank appraisals as the “comps” must catch up with new sales data. The low inventory also affects potential home sellers, especially the empty nesters who are “paralyzed” as one agent described, waiting on the best time to sell.
Buyers’ Lack of Vision. We discussed that the current generation of buyers would rather pay a premium for a move-in-ready home with the requisite gourmet kitchen with granite and stainless steel appliances, rather than pay less for a fixer-upper. Some Realtors have enlisted trusted contractors to scope out fixer-uppers along with buyers, so they can envision the potential of a lower priced home.
Condos Remain Strong Sector. Condominiums remain the new starter home for many buyers, especially singles. Inventory is strong and pricing remains affordable in many communities. With interest rates still at historic lows and the mortgage interest tax deduction still in place, purchasing a condo is much cheaper than renting. The consensus is that condos will remain a strong sector through 2013.
Short Sales Strong & Less Time Consuming. As noted by veteran short sale negotiator Andrew Coppo of Greater Boston Short Sales LLC, short sales are now becoming far less time consuming with the new Fannie Mae short sale guidelines in place since the summer. Mr. Coppo reports that short sales are taking merely 60 days to get approval, and Bank of America finally “getting it” by implementing its computerized Equator streamlined short sale system. Also, the Mortgage Debt Relief Act was extended through 2013, giving short sale sellers tax forgiveness for discharged debt. There are still lots of underwater and struggling homeowners, so 2013 will remain another strong year for short sales.
What are your predictions and thoughts for the 2013 Massachusetts real estate market? We would love to hear from you!
More good news for Massachusetts homeowners coming out of Congress’ late night passing of the Fiscal Cliff Bill. The mortgage interest tax deduction — which was reportedly on the Congressional chopping block — was untouched by Congress, leaving it in place. This is huge for the middle class, and especially for house-poor Massachusetts homeowners who tend to have larger mortgages than the rest of the country.
Congress also extended the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance (PMI) payments through December 31, 2013. Homeowners who were not able to put 20% down must typically pay for private mortgage insurance which protects lenders in case of a borrower default. PMI payments remain tax deductible for 2013 under the Fiscal Cliff bill, providing another tax break for Massachusetts homeowners.
It’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.
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.
This post will provide you with frequently asked questions concerning Massachusetts snow and ice removal law.
I am a homeowner and rental property owner. Am I legally required to clear snow and ice after a storm?
The law now in Massachusetts is that all Massachusetts property owners and landlords are legally responsible for the removal of snow and ice from their property. In 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of legal precedent which protected property owners from “natural accumulations of ice and snow,” and announced this new rule. My prior post on the case can be read here. The rule applies across the board, to homeowners, landlords, commercial business owners, restaurants, everyone.
I am a landlord. How long do I have to shovel snow and ice on my rental property?
There is no clear cut answer to this question, and juries and courts will ultimately decide what is reasonable. The City of Boston’s policy is to give businesses 3 hours to clean snow, and 6 hours to residents. My advice is to shovel and treat snow and ice early and often. Even a thin coating of black ice can cause someone to slip and fall and seriously hurt themselves. (Admit it if you’ve dumped on your rear end like I have!). If you are an out-of-town landlord, you must hire someone to shovel your snow.
My lease states that the tenant is responsible for snow shoveling. Will that protect me from liability?
Probably not. A person who is injured due to untreated snow or ice will likely sue both the property owner and the tenant. The property owner must ultimately ensure that the property is safe for visitors. The landlord may bring a claim for contribution/indemnification against the tenant.
I live in Boston, and I heard I have to shovel the public sidewalk in front of my house after a storm. Is that true?
Yes. On top of their added responsibilities, property owners in several Massachusetts communities, including Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Lynn, and Worcester, are required by local ordinances to clear municipal sidewalks in front of their residences or businesses. The City of Boston mandates clean sidewalks within 6 hours of a storm; Worcester is 12 hours.
Will my homeowner’s or CGL insurance policy cover any injuries from slip and fall on snow/ice?
Yes, usually. The standard Massachusetts homeowners insurance policy and commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL) will have liability coverage for slip and falls on property. Make sure you have ample liability coverage of at least $500,000 to 1 Million. (You can never have enough insurance!). As with any insurance question, it’s best to contact your personal insurance agent.
If you have additional questions, please ask them in the comment forms below!
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who advises property owners and landlords as to liability issues. Please contact him at 508-620-5352 or at [email protected].
Does Lodging House Law Apply to Student Apartments?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear the City of Worcester v. College Hill Propertiescase which may significantly impact renting apartments to students and in other multi-family situations. The justices will decide whether renting to 4 or more unrelated persons in one apartment unit requires a special license under the Massachusetts lodging housing law, which would require fire sprinklers and other expensive upgrades. The SJC will hear oral arguments in the case on January 7, 2013.
The case arose at The College of the Holy Cross in Worcester where several landlords rented out apartments to groups of unrelated students. The Housing Court and Appeals Court had previously ruled that the landlords ran afoul of the lodging house law by renting to more than 3 unrelated persons in one rental unit without the special lodging house license.
Impact Outside College Towns?
Prior to the Appeal Court’s decision, housing authorities typically allowed 4 or more unrelated adults to occupy single apartments as roommates without a lodging license provided that minimum space requirements were met: 150 s.f. of living space for the first person, 100 s.f. for each additional person (3 occupants = 350 s.f. of living space); 70 s.f. of bedroom space for 1st person, plus 50 s.f. for additional person (120 s.f. for 2 persons in one bedroom).
In the City of Boston, a new zoning ordinance went into effect in 2008 prohibiting 5 or more undergraduate students from living in one apartment unit. We will see how the Boston Inspectional Services Dept. interprets the College Hill ruling.
The SJC’s decision will hopefully clarify this grey area of Massachusetts rental property law.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is regarded as one of the leading real estate attorneys in Massachusetts. With over 25 years in practice, he is a four time winner of the "Top Lawyer" award by Boston Magazine, a "Super Lawyer" designation from Thompson/West, and "Best of Metrowest." For Rich's professional biography, click here. If you are interested in hiring Rich or have a legal question, email or call him at [email protected] or 508-620-5352.
One 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).
