Should Result In Much-Needed Inventory Boost To Housing Market
Good news to report for property owners saddled with toxic titles resulting from the seminal U.S. Bank v. Ibanez foreclosure ruling. Massachusetts lawmakers are poised to pass into law a new bill aimed at legislatively clearing up all of these defective titles.
By way of background, properties afflicted with Ibanez title defects, in worst cases, cannot be sold or refinanced. And homeowners without title insurance have been compelled to spend thousands in legal fees to clear their titles, while some have not been able to clear their titles at all.
The new legislation, Senate Bill 1987, would render clear and marketable any title affected by a defective foreclosure after 3 years have passed from the foreclosure. Most of these toxic titles were created prior to 2009, so the vast majority of them will be cleared up.
The bill does preserve any existing litigation over the validity of foreclosures. The legislation does not apply if there is an existing legal challenge to the validity of the foreclosure sale in which case record notice must be provided at the registry of deeds. The bill also does not shield liability of foreclosure lenders and attorneys for bad faith and consumer protection violations over faulty foreclosures.
The bill has recently been passed by the Senate and now moves on to the House. Word is that it should pass through the House and on to the Governor’s Desk.
Shrewsbury State Senator Michael Moore and the Massachusetts Land Title Association have sponsored this effort for several years now. I have been supporting this effort as well.
This is great news for the real estate market. I don’t have firm numbers, but there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of these unsellable properties just sitting on the sidelines, and now they can get back onto the market. This is exactly what the inventory starved market needs.
(Hat tip to Colleen Sullivan over at Banker and Tradesman for passing along this important information).
Congress Fails To Extend Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act for 2014
The ringing of the New Year may not be a welcome sound to distressed homeowners who were not able to complete short sales by the close of 2013. Unfortunately, Congress failed to extend the December 31, 2013 expiration of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, the federal law which makes short sale debt forgiveness non-taxable.
If there’s no extension, the short sale market will be decimated. I just closed a $600,000 short sale yesterday, just under the deadline. But if that same deal closed tomorrow, it would have resulted in an over $30,000 tax bill for a distressed homeowner who could in no way afford to pay that.
Last year, Congress rushed to extend the law during negotiations about the fiscal cliff but only through the end of 2013. Lawmakers and housing advocates argue that the rule hurts those who are already financially strapped. Since 2009, more than 220,000 homeowners have sold their houses for less than they were worth through a short sale with help from a government program. There are more than 6 million homes still underwater across the country, according to a third-quarter report from research company CoreLogic.
At the federal level, there are three bills — two in the House and one in the Senate — that call for the law’s extension. One of the House bills enjoys strong bipartisan support, with 29 Democrats and 23 Republicans on board. The Senate bill — which would extend relief through 2015 — is sponsored by Senators Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, and Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada. Stabenow sponsored the extension last year.
Don’t be surprised if short sales slow down considerably and go into a holding pattern while folks wait to see if Congress will extend the law. Let’s hope Congress acts on this important matter.
If you have any questions about short sales, please contact me at [email protected].
Housing Courts Will Likely Face Increased Caseload
Giving an early Christmas present to distressed homeowners, the Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that a foreclosed upon homeowner may challenge a bank’s title and foreclosure sale irregularities through counterclaims in a post-foreclosure eviction in the Housing Court — rather than being forced to file a separate equity lawsuit in the Superior Court. The case is Bank of America v. Rosa, SJC-11330 (Dec. 18, 2013).
The high court also held that the Housing Court has jurisdiction to hear other counterclaims against foreclosing lenders, including fair housing, consumer protection (Chapter 93A), and HAMP related claims.
The likely impact of this ruling will be that the already busy Housing Court will now be “Ground Zero” for foreclosure related litigation. Foreclosed property owners will have more weapons to delay and prevent being evicted after foreclosures.
Overall, while the ruling seeks to protect the rights of foreclosed property owners, it has the potential to delay the housing recovery in Massachusetts. The longer folks who don’t pay their mortgages are allowed to live rent free in their foreclosed houses, the more the housing market suffers. There are plenty of creditworthy buyers and investors willing and able to buy up and rehab these foreclosed properties. Letting them sit and blight neighborhoods doesn’t help anyone in the long run. Just my opinion…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always look forward to recapping the year that was, and bringing out the crystal ball to predict the year ahead. This year, like years prior, was an active year for Massachusetts real estate law, with several important court rulings, legislative developments, and emerging legal trends. The year 2013 is expected to be just as busy.
Eaton v. Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae v. Hendricks Foreclosure Rulings
Another year, another pair of huge foreclosure rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On June 22, 2012, in Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, the SJC held that lenders must establish they hold both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to lawfully foreclose. This posed major problem for the vast majority of conventional mortgages which lenders securitized and sold off on the secondary mortgage market, thereby splitting the note and mortgage among various securitized trusts and mortgage servicers. Responding to pleas from the real estate bar, the SJC declined to apply its ruling retroactively, thereby averting the Apocalyptic scenario where thousands of foreclosure titles would have been called into question. My prior post on the Eaton ruling can be read here.
The FNMA v. Hendrickscase had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The court upheld the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws,rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed.
New Medical Marijuana Law Has Landlords, Municipalities Smoking Mad
Burned up Massachusetts landlords and anti-pot local pols are still fuming with concern over the state’s newly passed but hazy medicinal marijuana law. The law — rolling out Jan. 1 — mandates the opening of at least 35 medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and grants users the right to grow a two-month supply of marijuana at home if they cannot get to a dispensary because they are too sick or too broke. The new law also potentially opens landlords up to federal prosecution for violating the federal controlled substances laws. Many towns and cities are contemplating banning dispensaries or passing zoning by-laws regulating their locations. My prior post on the new marijuana law can be read here.
Apartment Rental Occupancy Limits
In 2013, the SJC will consider the Worcester College Hillcase which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students and in other multi-family situations. The question is whether renting to 4 or more unrelated persons in one apartment unit requires a special “lodging house” license which would, in most cases, make it cost-prohibitive to rent to more than 3 unrelated persons. (Lodging houses require a built-in fire sprinkler system, for example). The SJC will hear oral arguments in the case on January 7, 2013.
Foreclosure Prevention Act Passed
On August 3, 2012, Governor Deval Patrick signed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The new law requires that lenders offer loan modifications on certain mortgage loans before foreclosing. Unfortunately, the law did not fix the problem with existing title defects resulting from the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case in 2010. (Sen. Moore’s office plans to re-introduce Senate Bill 830 in 2013). My prior post on the new law can be read here.
SJC To Consider Realtor’s Liability for Erroneous MLS Info
Sometime in 2013, the SJC will issue a very important opinion in the controversial DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. disclosure case where a Realtor was held liable for failing to verify the zoning of a listing on the Multiple Listing Service. The Court will also consider whether the exculpatory clause found in the Greater Boston Real Estate Board’s standard form purchase and sale agreement legally prohibits a buyer’s misrepresentation claim against the real estate agent. The Massachusetts Association of Realtors and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board have filed friend of the court briefs urging the SJC to limit Realtors’ disclosure obligations in the case. My prior post on the case can be read here.
Good Faith Estimate, TIL, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement To Change Dramatically
In the second major overhaul of closing disclosures in three years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be rolling out in 2013 a new “Lending Estimate” and “Closing Estimate” which will replace the current Good Faith Estimate, Truth in Lending Disclosure, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The changes are part of the Dodd-Frank Act, and has the lending and title insurance industries scrambling to figure out who should be ultimately responsible for the accuracy of closing fees and other logistics in delivering these new disclosures. My prior posts on the topic can be read here.
Fiscal Cliff Anxiety Syndrome
The Year In Review would not be complete without mention of the dreaded Fiscal Cliff. As of this writing, President Obama and the House (which even rejected its own Speaker Boehner’s last proposal) have been unable to work out a deal to resolve the more than $500 billion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1, 2013. If there is no deal, and the country goes over the fiscal cliff, the consensus is that it will have quite a negative effect on the economy and the real estate market in particular.
Upcoming Event! On January 8, 2013, we are sponsoring a breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis, who will offer his predictions on 2013. Please email me to sign up. The Facebook Event invitation is here. The venue is Avita in Needham, 880 Greendale Ave., Needham, MA.
Richard D. Vetstein is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who hopes the White House and Congress can get their acts together and pass a compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) ruling in Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Hendricks just came down, and it’s good news for the foreclosure industry and bad news for distressed homeowners.
This case had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The borrower, Oliver Hendricks, challenged the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws. Rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed, the Court upheld the statutory form affidavit.
The case arose when Fannie Mae was attempting to evict Hendricks after the foreclosure. The court’s ruling provides that foreclosing lenders need only submit a valid foreclosure deed and statutory form affidavit during an eviction proceeding; the burden of proof then shifts to the borrower to come up with evidence of foreclosure irregularities. This has proven very difficult for distressed homeowners and their attorneys.
After this decision (and a recent Appeals Court ruling taking away a common eviction defense for post-eviction squatters), foreclosures and post-foreclosure evictions will be much harder to challenge. Also, we’ll likely see an acceleration of the pace of foreclosures, evictions of holdover borrowers, and a shrinking inventory of foreclosed and REO properties. Although distressed homeowners may be worse off, the overall real estate market stands to improve due to this ruling.
I’ll have more analysis later. The decision is embedded below. Also below is a video of the defendant, Olive Hendricks, speaking about his predicament produced by CityLife.
All Politics Aside, It’s Time To Bring Housing & Real Estate Back To the Forefront
In the most tweeted, Facebook-ed and instant polled Presidential Campaign ever, there is one topic which has been met with surprisingly deafening silence: the U.S. Housing and Real Estate Market. During last week’s debate, we heard a lot about tax plans and cuts, energy, health care and jobs, but nothing on the real estate market. Nothing…This year’s presidential candidates have mostly avoided discussing an industry that’s largely responsible for the last five years of economic pain. But why?
For sure, the subject of housing remains an extremely sensitive one. President Obama might prefer that the real estate market, whose imbalances sparked the financial crisis, to remain a ghost issue because of a lackluster record at combating the foreclosure epidemic. He is also blamed for not doing enough on the loan modification front with the dismal HAMP and HARP programs. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, might like to steer clear of the topic because a hard stance on housing could alienate voters whom he needs to win. I’m not here to debate one particular side or candidate, but rather to simply pose the question of why no talk on real estate?
Obama Falls Short of Expectations?
“Obama’s major housing initiatives have fallen short of expectations, and so Obama doesn’t have big victories to point to,” said Jed Kolko, chief economist for listing service Trulia. “The housing market is still struggling in many parts of the country, so this is not a problem that’s been solved.” The administration’s flagship relief program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), has helped 1 million homeowners obtain lower interest rates, principal reductions, more time to pay their mortgages or any combination of the three. But that pales in comparison to the 3 to 4 million homeowners whom the program was supposed to help. Meanwhile, the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), designed to help 5 million homeowners refinance their mortgages into lower interest rates, has benefited only about 1.5 million homeowners.
Romney Gun-Shy On Housing?
Romney’s housing platform includes the potential elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that prospect may be just too scary and radical to everyday voters and homeowners who have relied on the government giants to stabilized the formerly free-falling real estate market. “To stake out what you think Fannie and Freddie’s future is is to alienate somebody,” commented Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute. “Realtors and home builders tend to be politically active — and Republicans,” noted Mr. Calabria. Indeed, Romney’s free-market stance on housing, if articulated bluntly, could unsettle many distressed homeowners as well. He has said that he believes that the housing market should naturally “hit bottom,” and has harshly criticized Obama’s relief programs.
Let’s Get The Housing Dialogue Going!
Over the past several months, I’ve enjoyed healthy (and even civil) political discussion on the issues on my Facebook feed. (Please join in!). The real estate market and housing alwayscomes up, whether it’s in the context of folks not able to refinance their underwater mortgages, the loss of their equity, or the impact of unemployment on the general real estate sector. Granted, the real estate market has made significant gains since the bottom fell out in 2008, but folks are still hurting out there and it’s really been the Fed and its low interest rates which have largely kept the market from imploding. So, we shouldbe talking about all the issues. And that means federally assisted refinancing for underwater mortgages, Fed policy on interest rates, and the future of the GSE’s. Oh and by the way, where did all that foreclosure crisis settlement money go? I have yet to hear about anyone who has received any assistance from that fund.
Well, if Obama and Romney aren’t going to talk housing and real estate, we can do it here on this blog. Feel free to post your comments, diatribes or soapbox speeches in the comment section below. You can use the Facebook comments too. Keep the debate civil please!
Court Will Consider Mortgage Servicer/MERS Standing and Statutory Foreclosure Affidavits
The Supreme Judicial Court has a busy Fall Term with several important foreclosure cases on the docket. Here’s a quick summary.
HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt (SJC-11101)
The SJC is considering whether a mortgage servicer holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process. I wrote about this case in a prior post here. This ruling will affect just about every conventional mortgage foreclosure in the state. The lower court Land Court opinion can be read here. The court asked for friend-of-the-court briefs, and the Real Estate Bar Association filed a brief supporting the foreclosing lenders. Glenn Russell’s brief for the appellant Jodi Matt can be read here.
Oral arguments were held in early September, but unfortunately the webcast is unavailable. One of my sources told me that the justices were very active and peppered both attorneys with lots of questions.
Following the recent Eaton v. FNMA case, which held that a mortgage servicer may foreclosure upon a showing of proper agency and authority, I predict that the Court will ultimately hold that servicers and lenders holding rights to securitized mortgages have legal standing to start the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act proceeding, even if they merely hold a contractual right to the actual mortgage. The most compelling rationale for such a ruling is that the only purpose of the Servicemember proceeding is to ascertain whether the borrower is in active military service. It is not intended to be a forum to litigate issues relating to the propriety of securitized mortgage transfers and contractual standing.
Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Hendricks (SJC 11234)
This case has the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice. The issue presented is whether the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws is on its face sufficient. The case will also decide whether the statutory power of sale form, originally drafted in 1912, is also facially sufficient. The docket and briefs filed in the case can be found here.
The case originated from the Boston Housing Court where Hendricks fought his post-foreclosure eviction by Fannie Mae, asserting that the affidavits filed by Fannie Mae reciting compliance with the foreclosure statute were inadmissible and insufficient. A Housing Court judge disagreed, and upheld the foreclosure and the eviction.
With the well-publicized robo-signing controversy looming in the background, I would not be surprised if the SJC rules in favor of Hendricks here and in the process tightens up the requirements for filing foreclosure affidavits. Indeed, that is the trend with the Legislature’s recent passing of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. As with the Eaton v. FNMA ruling, the Court should likely make its ruling prospective and not retroactive so as to not disrupt titles in the Commonwealth.
Galiastro v. MERS (SJC DAR 20960)
The SJC just accepted direct appellate review from the Appeals Court in this interesting case. This case will finally decide whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has standing to foreclose in its own name. The case, however, is somewhat mooted because MERS no longer forecloses in its own name, but there are plenty of MERS foreclosures in back titles. The SJC has announced that it will solicit friend-of-the-court briefs on the issue of “whether MERS “has standing to pursue a foreclosure in its own right as a named ‘mortgagee’ with ability to act limited solely as a ‘nominee’ and without any ownership interest or rights in the promissory note associated with the mortgage; whether the prospective mandate of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time that case was decided.” This case will be argued in April 2013. I will have analysis after that.
Coakley Expects Fed’s Compliance with New Loan Modification Law
Attorney General Martha Coakley is picking a very public fight with federal mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the wake of the new Massachusetts Foreclosure Prevention Act passed earlier in August. The new law requires that lenders first explore loan modifications before starting foreclosure proceedings.Fannie and Freddie control approximately 60% of all U.S. residential mortgages.
In a letter broadcast to the press yesterday, she demands that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, like all creditors, to comply with these statutory obligations as they conduct business in Massachusetts. These loan modifications are critical to assisting distressed homeowners, avoiding unnecessary foreclosures, and restoring a healthy economy in our Commonwealth,” Coakley said. Stefanie Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said, “We are reviewing the letter and will respond soon.”
The fact that AG Coakley had to write the letter begs the question. Will Fannie and Freddie comply with the new Massachusetts foreclosure law? Maybe not, if past performance is any indicator of future results.
The Federal Housing Finance Agent (FHFA), the federal regulator overseeing Fannie and Freddie, has been acting like some sort of federal rogue agency of late. Last month, the agency publicly rejected the new Obama principal reduction plan, to the chagrin of Treasury Secretary Tim Geither. And in June, it came up with a method to skirt the new tough foreclosure law passed in Hawaii. It seems that the sole concern of FHFA is to get foreclosures completed and REO properties sold off as quickly as humanly possible, homeowners be damned.
If Fannie and Freddie blow off Coakley, this will seriously dilute the new Foreclosure Act. We will monitor the situation as always.
On August 3, 2012, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law what’s been called the new Foreclosure Prevention Law. The text of the law can be found at House Bill No. 4323. The new law makes significant changes to existing foreclosure practices, and also attempts to clean up the recent turmoil surrounding defective foreclosure titles after the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and Eaton v. FNMA rulings, an issue for which I’ve been advocating for years. It goes into effect on Nov. 1, 2012. A quick summary is as follows with details below:
New requirement that mortgage assignments be recorded
New mandatory requirement to offer loan modifications and mediation to qualified borrowers
New Eaton foreclosure affidavit confirming ownership of note/mortgage loan
Protection for third party buyers of foreclosed properties
Mortgage Assignments Must be Recorded
Going forward, a foreclosure may not proceed unless the entire chain of mortgage assignments from the original mortgagee to the foreclosing entity is recorded. This is a statutory codification of the recommendation of the SJC in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, and should provide some well-needed clarity for titles. Under the new law, no foreclosure notice will be valid unless “(i) at the time such notice is mailed, an assignment, or chain of assignments, evidencing the assignment of the mortgage to the foreclosing mortgagee has been duly recorded in the registry of deeds . . . and (ii) the recording information for all recorded assignments is referenced in the notice of sale required in this section.”
Unfortunately, the new law does not address defective foreclosure titles created before the Ibanez decision, as we were hoping. Accordingly, folks who are still waiting for legislative help to cure their defective foreclosure titles may be left without a remedy.
Mandatory Loan Modification Efforts
In a provision pushed hard by housing advocates, the new law will require mortgage lenders to attempt to offer loan modifications instead of foreclosing. The qualification standards are rather complex and beyond the scope of this post. In sum, if the net present value of a modified mortgage exceeds the anticipated net recovery at foreclosure, the lender has to offer the borrower a modification.
Importantly, the new law provides immunity in favor of bona fide purchasers of foreclosed properties from claims by disgruntled borrowers that the lenders did not follow the loan modification rules.
New Eaton Affidavit
The new law also incorporates the SJC’s recent holding in Eaton v. Fannie Mae, where the SJC held that a foreclosing lender must be both the assignee of the mortgage and be either note holder or acting on behalf of the note holder. New Section 35C prohibits a creditor from publishing a foreclosure notice if the creditor “knows or should know that the mortgagee is neither the holder of the mortgage note nor the authorized agent of the note holder.” It also requires the creditor to record an affidavit swearing to its compliance with the new section. The affidavit will shield third-party buyers from title claims, but will not shield creditors from potential liability to the borrowers. Eaton suggested the use of affidavits, but now the statute requires it. Creditors cannot pass the cost of any corrective documentation upon borrowers or third parties.
Impact?
As with any major reform legislation, there will be a learning curve for foreclosing lenders and foreclosure attorneys to get documentation and systems in place to comply with the new requirements. We could potentially see additional litigation coming out of this new law brought by borrowers who feel they were not given a “fair shake” at a loan modification. From a real estate title perspective, the new law is a step in the right direction, but I was very disappointed that nothing was done to help folks who are still saddled with Ibanez title defects. This was the perfect opportunity to address that issue, and I’m afraid it won’t come up again.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney with an expertise in foreclosure related issues. You can contact him at [email protected].
Score One For Lenders and Mortgage Servicers In Long-Awaited Eaton v. Fannie Mae Case
The Massachusetts real estate community has been waiting 8 long months for a decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in the much anticipated Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association(link) case. The decision came down June 22, and now that the dust has settled, I don’t think there is any question that lenders and the title community have been given a judicial Maalox. ((Some smart foreclosure defense folks disagree with me, but I’m confident in my analysis.))
The SJC held that lenders must establish they hold both the promissory note (indebtedness) and mortgage (a major problem for securitized or MERS mortgages where the note and mortgage are split between securitized trust and servicer). However, responding to pleas from the real estate bar, the Court declined to apply the new rule retroactively, thereby averting the Apocalyptic scenario where thousands of foreclosure titles would have been called into question. This would have been disastrous for folks who purchased distressed and foreclosed properties.
Even better, the Court outlined new procedures, including filing a statutory affidavit, to ensure that foreclosures are fair to borrowers going forward. The ruling gave lenders and the foreclosure industry a huge pass for past errors, and will clear the way for foreclosures to accelerate and run their course in Massachusetts and possibly other states if this case is followed. Let’s break it down.
Background: Borrower Used “Produce the Note” Defense 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.
Ms. Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the lower Superior Court halting her eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This is the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across the country. Superior Court Judge Francis McIntyre bought into that argument, and stopped the foreclosure. Given the importance of the case, the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.
FHFA Files Amicus Brief and SJC Asks For More Guidance
This case garnered substantial local and national attention from the lending, title and real estate community on one side, and housing advocates on the other side. Notably, the Obama Administration’s Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a rare friend-of-the-court brief in a state court proceeding, arguing for a ruling in favor of lenders. Spirited oral arguments were held back in October which I briefed here.
In January, when a decision was expected, the Court surprisingly asked the parties for additional briefing on whether a decision requiring unity of the promissory note and mortgage would cloud real estate titles. This was the apocalyptic scenario that the real estate bar and title community urged the Court to avoid. (The Court listened, as I’ll explained below).
The Opinion: Unity Endorsed, A Foreclosing Lender Must “Hold” Both Note & Mortgage
The first issue considered by the court was the fundamental question of “unity” urged by the Eaton side: whether a foreclosing mortgagee must hold both the promissory note (underlying indebtedness) and the mortgage in order to foreclose. After reviewing Massachusetts common law going back to the 1800’s, the Court answered yes there must be unity, reasoning that a “naked” mortgagee (a holder of a mortgage without any rights to the underlying indebtedness) cannot foreclose because, essentially, there is nothing to foreclose. If the Court stopped there, lenders and MERS would have been in big trouble. But, as outlined below, the Court significantly limited the effect of this decision.
Disaster Averted: Ruling Given Prospective Effect
Swayed by the arguments from the Massachusetts Real Estate Bar Association that retroactive application of a new rule would wreak havoc with existing real estate titles in Massachusetts, the SJC took the rare step of applying its ruling prospectively only. As Professor Adam Levitin (who drafted an amicus brief) noted on his blog, this “means that past foreclosures cannot be reopened because of this case, so the financial services industry just dodged billions in liability for wrongful foreclosures and evictions, and the title insurance industry did as well.” So going forward, lenders must establish unity of both note and mortgage, but past foreclosures are immune from challenge.
MERS System Given Blessing?
Ms. Eaton’s mortgage was a MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) mortgage. MERS is a private system created by the largest national lenders and title companies to track assignments and ownership of loans as they are bought and sold in the secondary mortgage market. MERS has come under fire from distressed homeowners and registrars of deeds (especially our own Essex County Registrar John O’Brien) for robo-signing and bungled foreclosures. Although the Court did not specifically rule on the validity of the MERS system, the decision cited several new MERS policies and said that lenders who follow these new policies will likely be in compliance with the court’s holding. So MERS will continue doing business in Massachusetts for the foreseeable future.
Make Way For the “Eaton” Affidavit
The most important aspects of the Eaton ruling, in my opinion, are what came after the two “headline” rulings above. First, the Court made the explicit point that lenders do not have to physically possess both note and mortgage to be deemed a “holder” able to foreclose. This is huge given the pandemic paperwork deficiencies common with securitized mortgage trusts.
Second, the court also stated in a very important footnote that it will “permit one who, although not the note holder himself, acts as the authorized agent of the note holder, to stand “in the shoes” of the “mortgagee” as the term is used in these [foreclosure statute] provisions.” This footnote opens the door wide open for servicers and MERS to establish that they are authorized to foreclose, and acting on behalf of, the securitized trusts who hold legal title to the mortgages.
Lastly, the court approved the use of a statutory affidavit filed at the county registry of deeds in which the note holder or mortgage servicer confirms that it either holds the promissory note or is acting on behalf of the note-holder. We will surely be seeing these “Eaton” affidavits being prepared and recorded in connection with foreclosures.
Potential Bad News For U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Defect Victims
The Court’s ruling may be bad news for those property owners stuck with defective title issue stemming from a botched foreclosure under the seminal U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. Last year, the Court, in Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, suggested that 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 the current owner would be granted the right to foreclosure by virtue of holding an “equitable assignment” of the mortgage foreclosed upon. The Eaton v. Fannie Mae ruling, however, may have killed that remedy because the current owner now needs to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage. Ibanez titles remain toxic, and I am hearing that title insurers who are on the hook for them are not even willing to try to fix them until a legislative fix.
What’s Next?
As a real estate and title attorney, what I appreciate about this decision is that the SJC took into account the disastrous effect a retroactive rule would have on past titles (now held by innocent third party purchasers) and came up with new ground rules for foreclosing lenders to follow going forward. It’s like the court said “what’s done is done, now let’s move forward doing it the ‘right’ way.” We will definitely see foreclosures that were in a holding pattern resume again. On the closing side, when I am reviewing a title with a past foreclosure, my client and I can sleep better knowing that the risk of a defective title just got a reduced substantially. This is good for the housing market and it makes more properties marketable.
However, this is not the end of foreclosure litigation in Massachusetts. As with most landmark cases pronouncing a new rule of law, subsequent litigation to clarify what the court meant is likely to follow in this case. Some remaining unanswered questions include:
Is the produce the note defense truly dead for previously completed foreclosures–even where promissory notes are lost and not produced?
If challenged, what further documentation, if any, will suffice to establish agency for MERS and mortgage servicers of mortgages held in securitized trusts.
Will borrowers be able to challenge new “Eaton” affidavits which appear to be fraudulent or robo-signed?
All things considered, I will agree with Prof. Levitin who opined: “In the immediate term, I’d score the case as a major victory for the financial services industry, which avoided liability for its failure to comply with state law foreclosure requirements. Going forward, however, things are more complicated.”
Huge Sigh of Relief For Mortgage and Foreclosure Industry
The much awaited opinion by the SJC in Eaton v. Fannie Mae has just been released, and it is a huge Maalox for the banking and real estate community. Case embedded below. I have written a more detailed analysis here but here are the highlights:
Although the Court adopted some of the Eaton side’s arguments, I believe that lenders and MERS ultimately came out as the winners, as initial reports indicate. The Court basically gave lenders a pass on prior defective foreclosures and created new “rules of the road” for foreclosures going forward. There will definitely be more litigation after this case to sort out what foreclosing lenders and servicers need to prove in order to foreclose.
Agreeing with the Eaton/homeowner side, the Court ruled that going forward, lenders will have establish that they “hold” both the mortgage and promissory note, in order to foreclose. However, the court endorsed several methods in which lenders will be able to satisfy this requirement, thereby potentially creating several exceptions which will swallow the general rule.
Agreeing with lenders and Fannie Mae, the Court took the rare step of declining to apply the the key holding retroactively. The ruling will apply prospectively and will have no impact on previously completed or in process foreclosures. Those foreclosures will likely be immune from challenge along the lines Eaton asserted. This saved the lender and title insurance industry millions of dollars in claims.
Critically for the lending and title community, the Court ruled that lenders do not need to physically hold both note and mortgage at time of foreclosure, striking a huge blow to the “produce the note” defense: The court acknowledged that the Massachusetts foreclosure statute, enacted well before the proliferation of securitization and MERS, was unclear in the modern era of securitizing mortgages.
The court essentially blesses the current MERS and current servicer system where mortgage servicers can show that they have legal authority to act on behalf of mortgage holder/lender to foreclose. The SJC overturned the injunction against the lender and the case was remanded below where the servicer, Green Tree, will have the opportunity to establish they have the legal authority and agency to foreclose on behalf of the mortgage holder.
We will see new attorney and custodian of records affidavits being filed and used to establish the chain of ownership the court said would comply with the foreclosure laws.
Additional foreclosure relief is one step closer to becoming law as the Massachusetts House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 4087, “An Act to Prevent Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures.” The bill, sponsored by AG Martha Coakley, mandates that banks and foreclosing lenders enter into mandatory loan modification discussions with borrowers before they can start foreclosure proceedings on residential homeowners.
Lenders May Have To Consider Loan Modifications
The key provision of the bill is the requirement that lenders give borrowers a fair shot at a loan modification. Among the factors that banks must consider before foreclosing is the “borrower’s ability to pay,” a provision that will likely be addressed in future drafts of the legislation, or through regulations developed by the Massachusetts Division of Banks. Under the proposed law, if a modified loan is worth more than the amount the bank expects to recover through foreclosure, the lender must offer that modified loan to the borrower. If it doesn’t, then the lender can continue the foreclosure process.
This bill builds on previous legislation, “An Act Relative to Mortgage Foreclosures,” signed into law in August 2010, which made sweeping changes to Massachusetts foreclosure law. That Act extended the 90-day right-to -cure on foreclosures to 150 days, created new requirements for lenders offering reverse mortgages, established mortgage fraud as a crime, and provided additional protections for tenants living in foreclosed properties.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected that it will be finalized by the completion of the formal legislative session on July 31, 2012. As always, we’ll keep tabs on these developments.
Well, someone in government has been listening to the chorus of complaints about lenders taking too long to make short sale decisions. In a *rare* move of federal government housing competence, the Federal Housing Finance Agency has instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to impose new guidelines which should accelerate short sale decisions. The new rules require that short sale lenders make a decision on a short sale within 30 days of a complete application, and if more time is needed, they must give weekly status updates. This will make short sale agents, sellers and buyers much happier. The new requirements go into effect June 15.
However, how much of an impact this will have on national short sales remains to be seen. Freddie Mac has jurisdiction over a small percentage of short sales, mostly HAFA short sales as well as a limited number of traditional short sales, totaling about 45,000 last year. (Bank of America did over 150,000 short sales last year, by comparison). This is certainly a step in the right direction, and hopefully will lead to more regulatory pressure on the big banks to speed up short sales.
It is no secret that both lenders and loan servicers have made continued efforts during recent months to vastly improve their short sale approval time-frames. As someone who exclusively negotiates short sales, I think it is important to note that the new Freddie Mac regulations don’t include any penalties or sanctions for loan servicers or lenders who fail to comply. What’s more, the new rules appear to only require short sale lenders to “make a decision on a short sale within 30 days of a complete application, otherwise they need to send weekly updates.” Most lenders will simply comply with the new requirements by sending out a weekly letter stating that the file is incomplete and request more short sale documents from the homeowner (most lenders already do this). Lenders could also comply with the new rules by simply making an unreasonably high counter-offer. What most people fail to realize is that most lenders, such as Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and GMAC all utilize an automated short sale processing software, known as Equator, that enables them to approve a short sale in as little as 30 days. The majority of short sales that take more than 60 days to get approved do so because the person submitting the paperwork fails to submit a complete package or the lender “loses” a portion of the submitted paperwork. While the new guidelines are a step in the right direction, without any sanctions or penalties I don’t see them having much of an effect on the time in which the lenders and loan servicers process short sale requests.
In an effort to make the short sale process more transparent, Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) is updating its timelines and also requiring servicers to provide weekly updates when decisions take more than 30 days after the receipt of a complete application for a short sale under the Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternative (HAFA) initiative or Freddie Mac’s traditional requirements. All decisions must be made within 60-days. Today’s announcement marks the newest part of the Servicing Alignment Initiative (SAI) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae launched in 2011 at the direction of their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to set consistent servicing and delinquency management requirements. Last year Freddie Mac completed 45,623 short sales, a 140 percent increase since the housing crisis began.
News Facts
Freddie Mac’s new short sale timelines require servicers to make a decision within 30 days of receiving either 1) an offer on a property under Freddie Mac’s traditional short sale program or 2) a completed Borrower Response Package (BRP) requesting consideration for a short sale under HAFA or Freddie Mac’s traditional short sale program. (BRPs are standardized assistance applications developed as part of the Servicing Alignment Initiative.)
If more than 30 days are needed, borrowers must receive weekly status updates and a decision no later than 60 days from the date the complete BRP is received. This will help servicers who may need more time to obtain a broker price opinion or a private mortgage insurer’s approval on a BRP or property offer.
In the event a servicer makes a counteroffer, the borrower is expected to respond within five business days. The servicer must then respond within 10 business days of receiving the borrower’s response.
Freddie Mac will use the new timelines to evaluate servicer compliance with the SAI and its own servicing requirements.
Freddie Mac completed 45,623 short sales in 2011, a 140 percent increase since 2009. Overall, Freddie Mac has also helped more than 615,000 distressed borrowers avoid foreclosure since the housing crisis began.
Richard Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney. For more information, please contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup or 508-620-5352.
Common Eviction Defenses Ruled Unavailable To Squatters Who Lived Rent/Mortgage Free For 3 Years
In a April 10, 2012 ruling, the Massachusetts Appeals Court just made it easier for foreclosing banks to evict squatters of foreclosed properties. This is one of the few pro-bank Massachusetts decisions coming out of the foreclosure crisis, and should help speed up the disposition and sale of foreclosure and REO properties which, in turn, should help the housing market.
The case is Deutsche Bank v. Gabriel, and can be downloaded here. The defendants were all members of a single family living at 195-197 Callender Street in Dorchester for over 28 years. In 2009, the property went into foreclosure, and Deutsche Bank acquired title by foreclosure deed. As has become common in neighborhoods throughout Boston, the foreclosed upon family refused to leave, and Deutsche Bank brought eviction proceedings against them.
The family fought the eviction tooth-and-nail, and asserted the very common statutory defense based on poor property conditions. This defense, if successful, can prevent a landlord from recovering possession. Aside from irony that the family had been living at the premises for 28 years and was therefore the clear cause of any bad property conditions, the Appeals Court held that the family were squatters (and not tenants) with no legal entitlement to raise this defense. Barring another appeal, the court cleared the way for the eviction, some 6 years after the foreclosure and presumably with the tenants living rent and mortgage free the entire time.
With the housing market turning around, this decision is some long-awaited good news for those dealing with REO and foreclosed properties. Squatting tenants will be easier to evict and properties should be back on the market faster. Bad news for those fighting foreclosure, but good news for the real estate market.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is regarded as one of the leading real estate attorneys in Massachusetts. With 25 years in practice, he was voted a "Super Lawyer," a "Top Lawyer" by Boston Magazine 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.
Should Result In Much-Needed Inventory Boost To Housing Market
