Breaking News (10/18/11): The Court has issued its opinion, affirming the Land Court’s dismissal. For a full analysis, click here.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has taken up an appeal about whether a home buyer can rightfully own a property if the bank that sold it to him didn’t have the right to foreclose on the original owner, after the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez landmark ruling a few weeks ago. This case may determine the rights of potentially thousands of innocent purchasers who bought property at foreclosure sales that have been rendered invalid after the Ibanez ruling.
The case is Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, and can be read here. In Bevilacqua, Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) ruled that the buyer of property out of an invalid foreclosure has no right to bring a “quiet title” action to establish his ownership rights because he never had good title in the first place. “I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote. The net effect of the ruling is that the innocent buyer’s only remedy is to sue the foreclosing lender for damages–not a great option–or force the lender to fix the deficiencies with the original foreclosure–if that’s possible at all.
Estimating how many purchasers have been affected by Ibanez defects is difficult. There have been over 40,000 foreclosures in Massachusetts in the last 5 years, and over 12,000 last year alone, up 32% from the year before. A Boston Globe columnist recently performed a rudimentary analysis of foreclosed properties in Chelsea, and found that about 33% may have been afflicted with Ibanez-type deficiencies.
Many people who purchased homes at foreclosure sales may not even know their titles are problematic–until they try to refinance or sell. So this problem will likely take years to ultimately resolve, unless the legislature comes up with some type of solution. And these problems may go back a very long way–5 or even 10 years in the past.
Bloomberg News has a great write up about the case here. I was quoted in the Bloomberg piece about the significance of the problem:
The third-party issue has become a major one for title insurers in the state, said Richard D. Vetstein, a real-estate lawyer in Framingham, Massachusetts.
“What’s going to happen to all these people?” Vetstein said. “The people who don’t have title insurance are really in big trouble.”
The court may have left the issue of third-party buyers unaddressed in Ibanez anticipating a ruling in the Bevilacqua case, said Thomas Adams, a partner at New York law firm Paykin Krieg & Adams LLP.
“That’s a big issue to leave outstanding,” said Adams, a former analyst at bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc. “If Judge Long’s decision holds, then that’s a big deal.”
If you purchased property out of a foreclosure sale within the last 10 years, you should have a title examination performed to assess whether you have defective title. Needless to say, if you are considering buying property out of foreclosure (or not), these cases are the very reason why you must obtain an owner’s title insurance policy! Contact us for more information.
I read The Big Short, by Michael Lewis a few months ago. Now after the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling exposed possible widespread irregularities in the mortgage securitization industry, I thought it would be a great blog topic. If you are going to read one book about the market this year, read this one.
Back in 2005, credit default swaps, Alt-A tranches, and interest-only negative-amortizing adjustable-rate sub-prime mortgages were exotic pieces of the Wall Street mortgage securitization machine. Now, and after cases like U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, we know the dark and insidious side of the industry.
The Big Short teaches us that Wall Street bankers knew as early as 2006 about the rising default rate on sub-prime mortgages but engaged in an elaborate scheme to hide that reality from ratings agencies and investors. Lewis explains that when investor demand for sub-prime mortgages outpaced inventory, Wall Street came up with “synthetic” mortgage-backed securities whose performance would mirror that of the real thing. Then the bankers conspired to inflate the price of mortgage-backed securities well into 2007, even when they knew the true value was falling, only marking them down in value after their own hedging strategies were in place. And bank CEO’s knew as much as a 5th grader about the risks their organizations were taking.
Lewis is a great storyteller. He made the sub-prime mortgage meltdown riveting by following a handful of characters and personalities who bet on the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market, and by extension, the entire U.S. housing market. My favorite was Steve Eisman, whose profanity laced diatribes were as legendary as his repeated tirades to anyone who cared to listen that the entire sub-prime industry was a fraud and a scam.
Thinking about the book in the aftermath of the recent U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, I am not at all surprised to witness the “foreclosure fallout” and the exposure of major flaws in the U.S. mortgage securitization industry, given how much fraud, obfuscation, and greed went into creating the U.S. sub-prime industry in the first place. Lewis ends with two young hedge fund managers pondering that they “had always sort of assumed that there was some grown-up in charge of the financial system whom they had never met; now they saw there was not.” Is there some grown-up in charge now? I often wonder…
The case certainly has national implications as the Massachusetts SJC is the first state supreme court to weigh in on the legal ramifications of widespread irregularities in the residential securitized mortgage industry. Over half of U.S. states have foreclosure laws similar to Massachusetts’ regarding the assignment of mortgages, such as California and Georgia. Other courts across the country will likely be influenced by the ruling, especially since the SJC is widely regarded as one of the most respected state supreme courts in the country.
But is the Ibanez ruling really the next Foreclosure Apocalypse?
That remains to be seen. But the answer to the question will likely rest with what has transpired under little-known, complex mortgage securitization pooling and servicing agreements, known as PSA’s. These complex agreements may unlock the key to who, if anyone, owns these non-performing mortgage loans and has the legal right to foreclose.
The Ibanez Fact Pattern: Mortgage Assignments In Blank, A Common Practice
On December 1, 2005, Antonio Ibanez took out a $103,500 loan for the purchase of property at 20 Crosby Street in Springfield, MA secured by a mortgage to the lender, Rose Mortgage, Inc. The mortgage was recorded in the county registry of deeds the following day. Several days later, Rose Mortgage executed an assignment of this mortgage in blank, that is, an assignment that did not specify the name of the assignee. The blank space in the assignment was at some point stamped with the name of Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) as the assignee, and that assignment was recorded in the registry of deeds on June 7, 2006. Before the recording, on January 23, 2006, Option One also executed an assignment of the Ibanez mortgage in blank.
Option One then assigned the Ibanez mortgage to Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which assigned it to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which then assigned it to the Structured Asset Securities Corporation, which then assigned the mortgage, pooled with approximately 1,220 other mortgage loans, to U.S. Bank, as trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z. With this last assignment, the Ibanez and other loans were pooled into a trust and converted into a mortgage-backed securities pool that was bought and sold by investors.
On April 17, 2007, U.S. Bank started a foreclosure proceeding in Massachusetts state court. Although Massachusetts requires foreclosing lenders to follow the Soldier’s and Sailor’s Servicemember’s Act to ensure the debtor is not in the military, it is considered a non-judicial foreclosure state. In the foreclosure complaint, U.S. Bank represented that it was the “owner (or assignee) and holder” of the Ibanez mortgage. At the foreclosure sale on July 5, 2007, the Ibanez property was purchased by U.S. Bank, as trustee for the securitization trust, for $94,350, a value significantly less than the outstanding debt and the estimated market value of the property.
On September 2, 2008–14 months after the foreclosure sale was completed – U.S. Bank obtained an assignment of the Ibanez mortgage.
The major problem was that as the time U.S. Bank initiated the foreclosure proceeding, it did not possess (and could not produce evidence of) a legally effective mortgage assignment evidencing that it held the Ibanez mortgage.
Pooling and Servicing Agreements are part of the complex mortgage securitization lending agreements. As one securitization expert explains, a Pooling and Servicing Agreement is the legal document creating a residential mortgage backed securitized trust. The PSA also establishes some mandatory rules and procedures for the sales and transfers of the mortgages and mortgage notes from the originators to the securitized trusts which hold the millions of bundles of mortgage loans.
The Ibanez ruling clearly invalidates a common practice in the sub-prime mortgage securitization industry of assigning the mortgage in blank and not recording it until after the foreclosure process has started. The Court held that there must be evidence of a valid assignment of the mortgage at the time the foreclosure process starts which would establish the current ownership of the mortgage.
Left open by the Court was what evidence would suffice to establish such ownership, specifically referencing PSA’s:
“We do not suggest that an assignment must be in recordable form at the time of the notice of sale or the subsequent foreclosure sale, although recording is likely the better practice.Where a pool of mortgages is assigned to a securitized trust, the executed agreement that assigns the pool of mortgages, with a schedule of the pooled mortgage loans that clearly and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder. However, there must be proof that the assignment was made by a party that itself held the mortgage.”
This language opens the door for Massachusetts foreclosing lenders to move ahead with foreclosures and cure title defects by using PSA’s to prove proper assignment of the mortgage loans. That is, if they can produce proper documentation that the defaulting mortgage was actually transferred into the pool and assigned to the end-holder before the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. Whether lenders can do this is another story.
Have Lenders Complied With The PSA’s?
The major problem for banks is mounting evidence is that originating lenders like Countrywide and Bank of America never transferred a vast number of loans into the securitized trusts in the first place. Josh Rosner, a well respected financial analyst, issued a client advisory in October, advising of widespread violations of pooling and servicing agreements on mortgages. Mr. Rosner counseled that although PSA’s require transfer of the promissory notes into the securitized trusts, that hardly ever occurred in the white hot run-up of securitized loans in the last decade. He also says that the mortgage assignments which must accompany each note are routinely ignored or left blank. (This was the major problem in the Ibanez case).
Mr. Rosner said:
“We believe nearly every single loan transferred was transferred to (securitized trusts) in “blank” name. That is to say the actual loans were apparently not, as of either the cut-off or closing dates, assigned to the (securitized trusts) as required by the PSA.”
Mr. Rosner concludes in this chilling statement:
There have been a large numbers of foreclosure proceedings where, because of improper assignments, the trust has been unable to demonstrate the right to foreclose. It is thus that we raised concern about the transfer “in blank name.” We do believe it likely the rush to move large volumes of loans may well have resulted in operational failures in the “true sale” process by some selling firms and trustees. Were this “missing assignment” problem, which we are witnessing in individual foreclosure proceedings, to be found to have resulted from widespread failure of issuers and trusts to properly transfer rights there would be appear to be a strong legal basis for the calling into question securitizations.
“It may mean investors who think they bought mortgage- backed securities bought securities that aren’t backed by anything,” said Kurt Eggert, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California. Well, that’s already happened. Check out this lawsuit by MBIA Insurance against Credit Suisse 0ver a bad securitization loan deal.
Using the Ibanez case as a guide, CNBC.com Senior Editor, John Carney wrote a humorous yet ominous hypothetical conversation between U.S. Bank, the servicer, and Option One:
US Bank dude: “Hey, can I speak to whoever it is who is handling the Ibanez mortgage?”
Option One guy (after some delay): “No one handles that mortgage. We sold it five years ago to Lehman and closed the file.”
US Bank: “Right. Okay. Well, I need you to find someone who will execute an assignment of the mortgage to me.”
Option One: “First of all, no one who handled that mortgage still works here. You might have heard about the mortgage meltdown, right? Second, we sold it to Lehman, according to the file.”
US Bank: “Right. But I bought it from Lehman.”
Option One: “So get the assignment from Lehman.”
US Bank: “They’re an empty company that is in bankruptcy.”
Option One: “I’ve heard about that. Thanks for the news.”
US Bank: “So I need you to execute the assignment.”
Option One: “First of all, you’re going to have to show me that you bought the loan from Lehman. Second, I need to talk to legal to make sure I can assign a mortgage to someone we never dealt with. Third, how much are you willing to pay me to do all this?”
US Bank: “Pay you? I already own the mortgage.”
Option One: “The mortgage we sold to Lehman. If Lehman asks for the assignment, we’ll do it as part of that deal. But, as far as I can tell, I don’t owe you anything. If you want an assignment, you’re going to at least be paying the legal bills for the legal opinion that says it’s okay for us to do this.”
US Bank: “You don’t have to be an [expletive deleted] about this.”
Option One: “I also don’t have to give you an assignment.”
Now take that scenario, and multiple it by a factor of 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000….see what we are talking about here? As Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitan so artfully commented, “deal design was fine, deal execution was terrible.”
Before the Ibanez ruling came down Bloomberg News said the best scenario is that the disputes are deemed as legal technicalities, which would cause a one-year delay in foreclosures. In the medium case, years of litigation will ensue. In the worst case, the problem becomes systemic, causing “the mortgage market to grind to a halt as title insurers refuse to insure mortgages involving existing homes.”
Well, we now know from the Ibanez decision that this is hardly a “legal technicality.” So we are in the medium or worst case scenarios.
For those thousands (or millions?) of defaulted loans which were “assigned in blank,” I’m simply not sure if or how mortgage lenders are going to be able to cure the title defects they created. It’s going to take some major effort and creative lawyering, that’s for sure.
In some cases, I’m afraid, these problems may be fatal. That is, once U.S. Bank, for example, obtained a mortgage assignment executed and effective after the start of the foreclosure, which the SJC said was no good, they cannot then go back and re-create a new assignment dated prior to the foreclosure. That’s called back-dating, and would be fraudulent. And there’s also the issue of all these original promissory notes which were never transferred. Where are those? In some dingy warehouse in Texas. Good luck finding them.
Rather scary, huh?
Don’t Believe The Hype? Proceed At Your Own Peril
Not all investment analysts, however, expect financial chaos. The controversy may cause a six-month delay in foreclosures and “have a muted effect on valuation” of about $154 billion of mortgage-backed securities, Laurie Goodman, senior managing director of Amherst Securities Group LP in New York, wrote in a note to investors. “Servicers will incur high costs both from re-processing loans that are in the process of foreclosure as well as from defending themselves in litigations,” Goodman wrote. “And investors definitely need to question the cash flows they are receiving on private-label MBS, to ascertain that they are not paying for expenses that rightfully belong to servicers.”
There are several important and unanswered questions which remain. How many pools of mortgage loans are affected by the “assignment in blank” and related irregularities in the servicing pools? How many pools are affected by the missing or lost promissory notes? How many pools are affected by assignment executed after the foreclosure started? Will California and other states with huge foreclosure rates follow the Ibanez ruling?
“[W]hat is surprising about these cases is … the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.” –Justice Robert Cordy, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled against foreclosing lenders and those who purchased foreclosed properties in Massachusetts in the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case. Here is the link for the decision. I’ve posted the decision below, and I’ve done a video blog embedded below.
Background
For those new to the case, the problem the Court dealt with in this case is the validity of foreclosures when the mortgages are part of securitized mortgage lending pools. When mortgages were bundled and packaged to Wall Street investors, the ownership of mortgage loans were divided and freely transferred numerous times on the lenders’ books. But the mortgage loan documentation actually on file at the Registry of Deeds often lagged far behind.
In the Ibanez case, the mortgage assignment, which was executed in blank, was not recorded until over a year after the foreclosure process had started. This was a fairly common practice in Massachusetts, and I suspect across the U.S. Mr. Ibanez, the distressed homeowner, challenged the validity of the foreclosure, arguing that U.S. Bank had no standing to foreclose because it lacked any evidence of ownership ofthe mortgage and the loan at the time it started the foreclosure.
Mr. Ibanez won his case in the lower court in 2009, and due to the importance of the issue, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took the case on direct appeal.
The SJC Ruling: Lenders Must Prove Ownership When They Foreclose
The SJC’s ruling can be summed up by Justice Cordy’s concurring opinion:
“The type of sophisticated transactions leading up to the accumulation of the notes and mortgages in question in these cases and their securitization, and, ultimately the sale of mortgaged-backed securities, are not barred nor even burdened by the requirements of Massachusetts law. The plaintiff banks, who brought these cases to clear the titles that they acquired at their own foreclosure sales, have simply failed to prove that the underlying assignments of the mortgages that they allege (and would have) entitled them to foreclose ever existed in any legally cognizable form before they exercised the power of sale that accompanies those assignments. The court’s opinion clearly states that such assignments do not need to be in recordable form or recorded before the foreclosure, but they do have to have been effectuated.”
The Court’s ruling appears rather elementary: you need to own the mortgage before you can foreclose. But it’s become much more complicated with the proliferation of mortgage backed securities (MBS’s) –which constitute 60% or more of the entire U.S. mortgage market. The Court has held unequivocally that the common industry practice of assigning a mortgage “in blank” — meaning without specifying to whom the mortgage would be assigned until after the fact — does not constitute a proper assignment, at least in Massachusetts.
My Analysis
Winners: Distressed homeowners facing foreclosure
Losers: Foreclosing lenders, people who purchased foreclosed homes with this type of title defect, foreclosure attorneys, and title insurance companies.
Despite pleas from innocent buyers of foreclosed properties and my own predictions, the decision was applied retroactively, so this will hurt Massachusetts homeowners who bought defective foreclosure properties.
If you own a foreclosed home with an “Ibanez” title issue, I’m afraid to say that you do not own your home anymore. The previous owner who was foreclosed upon owns it again. This is a mess.
The opinion is a scathing indictment of the securitized mortgage lending system and its non-compliance with Massachusetts foreclosure law. Justice Cordy, a former big firm corporate lawyer, chastised lenders and their Wall Street lawyers for “the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.”
If you purchased a foreclosure property with an “Ibanez” title defect, and you do not have title insurance, you are in trouble. You may not be able to sell or refinance your home for quite a long time, if ever. Recourse would be against the foreclosing banks, the foreclosing attorneys. Or you could attempt to get a deed from the previous owner. Re-doing the original foreclosure is also an option but with complications.
If you purchased a foreclosure property and you have an owner’s title insurance policy, contact the title company right away.
The decision carved out some room so that mortgages with compliant securitization documents may be able to survive the ruling. This will shake out in the months to come. A major problem with this case was that the lenders weren’t able to produce the schedules of the securitization documents showing that the two mortgages in question were part of the securitization pool. Why, I have no idea.
The decision opens the door for foreclosing lenders to prove ownership with proper securitized documents. There will be further litigation on this. Furthermore, since the Land Court’s decision in 2009, many lenders have already re-done foreclosures and title insurance companies have taken other steps to cure the title defects.
We don’t know how other state court’s will react to this ruling. The SJC is one of the most well respected state supreme courts in the country. This decision was well-reasoned and I believe correct given that the lenders couldn’t even produce any admissible evidence they held the mortgages. The ruling will certainly be followed in states (such as California) operating under a non-judicial foreclosure system such as Massachusetts.
Watch for class actions against foreclosing lenders, the attorneys who drafted the securitization loan documents and foreclosing attorneys. Investors of mortgage backed securities (MBS) will also be exploring their legal options against the trusts and servicers of the mortgage pools.
The banking sector has already dropped some 5% today (1.7.11), showing that this ruling has sufficiently spooked investors.
Fannie Mae will roll out new lending guidelines on December 13 which will make securing a mortgage a lot easier for some borrowers but harder for others.
The Good News: Gift Money For Entire Down Payment
Borrowers can now use gifts or grant funds for their entire down payment, avoiding the old rule requiring at least 5% of the down payment from the borrowers’ own funds. Gifts can come from family members and non-profit community grants.
The new rule applies to all single family transactions and 1-4 unit multifamily mortgages with less than 80% loan to value.
For multifamily properties with 80% or higher LTV, the borrower must use his own funds for 5% of the down payment.
This will help upgrade buyers and young couples who for whatever reason don’t have enough money and are getting some from their families.
Bad News: Tougher Debt-To-Income Ratios
Fannie Mae is getting tougher on debt-to-income ratios, or the amount of a borrower’s gross monthly income that goes toward paying off all debts. The maximum ratio for those seeking a conventional mortgage will drop to 45 % from 55 % under the new guidelines.
The agency is also taking a harder look at payment histories on revolving debt. In the past, if a borrower missed a monthly payment, Fannie Mae ignored it, or required that lenders add a few percentage points to the total balance when calculating the debt-to-income ratio. Now, buyers who have missed a payment will have 5 % of the total balance added to their ratios.
These new guidelines could sink many potential borrowers with student-loan debt that has been deferred or borrowers who have bought big-ticket items through financing with delayed payments.
Worst News: Foreclosure Penalty Up To 7 Years
Perhaps the toughest news from Fannie Mae concerns borrowers who have gone through foreclosure. They will be excluded from obtaining a Fannie-backed loan for seven years, up from four.
This is an especially tough pill to swallow, especially since many feel Fannie Mae is complicit in creating the very environment which lead to the explosion of foreclosures.
Buyers who do not meet the new Fannie Mae requirements may have to consider a nonconforming loan from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). These loans, which do not follow Fannie Mae underwriting guidelines, require mortgage insurance premiums and, for those with low credit scores, higher interest rates and steeper down-payment requirements.
We welcome for the first time, guest blogger Ricardo Brasil. Ricardo is a Vice President at one of America’s largest Banks, and is recognized as one of the top mortgage originators nationally. For more info, go to his website at www.ricardobrasil.com or call him directly at (617) 897-5192.
Ricardo Brasil
Quantitative Easing Policy I (QE I): The First Go-Around
Some feel there is a good chance that the FOMC’s planned announcement to purchase U.S. treasury bonds will cause mortgage rates to fall even further. Unlike the Fed’s first quantitative easing (QE I) program, however, borrowers could see a muted (or even negative) response by the time QE2 winds down next June when it comes to rates for home loans.
Mortgage rates improved substantially the last time the Fed carried out its first Quantitative Easing program from December 2008 through March 2010. $1.75 trillion in bonds and mortgage backed securities were purchased during that time and mortgage interest rates dropped by more than 1% over the same period for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. In 2010 they have fallen further to just over 4% last week with no points.
Quantitative Easing Policy II (QE II): The Here & Now
There are those who argue the Fed’s second attempt at Quantitative Easing, known as QE2 or QEII, is different. Mortgage rates have the QE2 effect ‘baked into the cake’ according to many industry pundits. The goal of this type of Fed action is to lower real interest rates and increase spending in sectors that respond to interest rate changes. This includes home purchases as well as business spending and investment. Quantitative easing could decrease mortgage rates by increasing mortgage backed securities’ liquidity enough that the lower end MBS’s begin to sell. On the contrary, the purpose of quantitative easing ultimately is to stimulate the economy, and if it is successful, over time there should be real indicators of growth that show up in production and employment figure increases. These will surely put pressure on interest rates to rise.
Additionally, the direct impact on the economy of this quantitative easing policy will be a weakening of the US dollar. A weaker dollar in turn should make US products cheaper to foreign countries and cause exports to rise. With a weak dollar imported products of all kinds from clothes to consumer electronics will increase in price because it will take more dollars to buy the same amount of products. The increased cost of imports will drive up retail prices and increase inflation. As a result, inflation will cause home prices to rise and mortgage rates as well. This wouldn’t happen immediately but could be expected in the in the not too distant future. Moderate inflation and job growth are what the Fed is looking for.
Rising production of exported products should generate more profits for domestic companies and those profits should result in increased production and job growth. That in turn will lead to the stock market going up and for those in the mortgage industry who know this all too well, mortgage rates tend to follow the direction of the financial markets. Rates rise when the economy is clicking on all cylinders and equity markets are moving higher. Rates decrease when the economy and equity markets struggle.
Float or Lock Down? Don’t Fight The Fed
As the cliché goes, don’t fight the Fed. Well, when it comes to mortgage rates, when we know the Fed is trying to stimulate the economy and put off dealing with inflation, I would do away with any floating bias and will be taking advantage of historically low rates for the time being without holding off for lower rates that we may not see.
Mortgage rates are currently hovering at record lows and remain very attractive especially in combination with low home prices. Although there will continue to be fractional fluctuations in rates over the next few months, mortgage rates should be low but range bound for the foreseeable future before being forced higher by inflationary pressures. After rates improved a bit following the Fed’s announcement they have gone up as recent economic news has been quite sanguine especially with the 151,000 jobs added in October. Mortgage bonds have fallen a whopping 143 basis points in the past 5 days and the yield on the 10yr-note has spiked 28 basis points higher.
Ricardo Brasil can be reached at www.ricardobrasil.com or call him directly at (617) 897-5192.
“Are title insurance companies still insuring foreclosure properties?”— James In Cambridge
Answer: Yes, they are. Initially, the press reported that some major title insurers had temporarily stopped insuring foreclosure titles from JP Morgan Chase, Ally Financial, and Bank of America. However, my understanding is that all title insurers have resumed insuring all foreclosure properties in the wake of several major agreements between national title insurance companies and lenders. These warranty and indemnification agreements would essentially shift the risk of loss from irregular/defective foreclosures back onto the foreclosing lenders.
From the conveyancing side, I can definitely tell you that title insurers have advised their attorney agents to go through foreclosure titles with a fine tooth comb and to be especially diligent in examining and certifying foreclosure titles. Buyers of foreclosure properties should be prepared for delays in getting their transactions closed.
“How is robo-signing different from the Ibanez case situation”?–Scott
Answer: “Robo-signing” and the Massachusetts Ibanez foreclosure case are two different situations, but the root of the problem — the complexity of the securitized mortgage industry and the sheer volume of foreclosure paperwork to be processed — remains a contributing cause of both problems.
“Robo-signing,” as one of the leading foreclosure defense attorneys has claimed to the Huffington Post, refers to how financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in “foreclosure expert” jobs with no formal training to sign sworn documents submitted to courts. According to depositions released in Florida and the Post, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn’t define the word “affidavit.” Others didn’t know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits, and that they agreed with the defense lawyers’ accusations about document fraud.
This is obviously a major problem in states such as Florida which require a judge’s approval of a foreclosure based on sworn documents. However, Massachusetts is not such a state. Other than verifying the borrower is not in the military, Massachusetts state law doesn’t require any sworn verification that the foreclosure is kosher (if you will). That may change after lawmakers and the Attorney General’s office react this foreclosure mess. In fact, the AG announced this week she is investigating on of the largest “foreclosure mills” in the state for alleged non-compliance with the new tenant foreclosure law.
The Ibanez problem occurs when mortgage loan documentation recorded with the Registry of Deeds lagged far behind the actual ownership of the loan, due to complex mortgage securitization agreements and sloppy follow up. Land Court Judge Keith Long’s ruling effectively invalidated thousands of foreclosures which suffered from this newly recognized “defect.” The Ibanez situation is not a product of fraud, like robo-signing, in my opinion. In fact, the practice of recording mortgage assignments “late” was long accepted by the title examination community prior to the Ibanez ruling. So it caught a lot of folks off-guard.Getting title insurance on an Ibanez-afflicted property is near impossible these days, and the robo-signing controversy certainly doesn’t help alleviate the risk tolerance of anxious title insurance underwriters.
To be sure, both Ibanez and the robo-signing controversy have reverberated through the real estate community, and have impacted foreclosure sales on a number of levels. If you are considering purchasing a foreclosed property, please contact us so we can guide you through the complicated process and protect your interests.
David Gaffin of Greenpark Mortgage, www.massmortgageblog.com, is here with a superb summary of what’s now going on with Massachusetts (and national) residential mortgage market.
The National and Massachusetts Mortgage Lending Picture
Lot’s has been happening in the Mortgage World lately. Refinance business is very good. Purchase business is fair, heading into the all important year end buying season.
I will let this post be a little more free-form than my taking a particular topic and expounding on it (or beating it to death) depending on your perspective.
FHA has changed guidelines… Again.
USDA is still not guaranteeing loans.
Fannie and Freddie need another $200 billion of taxpayer money.
Foreclosures stopped and started again. What could that mean to you and me?
The Fed is meeting on Nov 3 to either lay the hammer down on Quantitative Easing II or will do nothing and really mess up interest rates.
Refinance Now!
1. So you want to refinance? My suggestions: A. Get started now! Loan pipelines continue to be backed up. Remember the bad old days when rates were an exorbitant 4.75% for a 30 year fixed rate and everyone re-fied? When was that again? Oh, right. JUNE. Well many of those same people are now re-fiing again in the low 4′s, possibly high 3′s. And people who were late to the party are adding on. So don’t expect your file to be closed in less than 60 days. Many lenders are at 120 days for refinances. If you have a current home equity line of credit that you plan to keep open, add another 30 days or so.
It is not all doom and gloom. I know of many files that were closed in less than 45 days. Purchases always get priority and about 30-35 days is the requirement. If you lender can’t get it done in that time, well my contact info is below.
Don’t be cranky with your loan officer or processor when they request enough paper work to rebuild a forest. The secondary market has really toughened its verification guidelines, cause no one wants to be left holding the bag on a loan that goes bad. Everyone wants to ensure that the underwriting, appraisal and income verification has been double and triple checked.
Good news for Realtors
End of year buying season has begun and the clients that want to be in their new homes by year end must make some decisions soon. We should see a boost in P & S activity over the next 30 days. If that doesn’t come to fruition, it could be a long dark winter for many of my realty friends. But rates are great! If you bought the same priced home 2 years ago, you would have paid 5-20% more than current prices and your interest rates could have been more than 2.00% higher. Now is a GREAT time to buy. I know that is self-serving, but I am a numbers and value guy. I don’t like seeing the value drop in my house either, but if I were buying I would be psyched!
FHA has changed it guidelines again as of Oct 4
FHA needs money to keep guaranteeing its loans against default. Every borrower pays a fee to get into the program and to ensure its continuation. So the fees got changed. FHA lowered the UPMIP (up-front mortgage insurance premium) from 2.25% to 1.00%. Sounds good right? With one hand they giveth and the other taketh away. The monthly mortgage insurance will virtually all FHA borrowers pay has moved from .55% of the base loan amount to .84% monthly. On a $200,000 loan the old cost over 7 years was $12,200 and the monthly MI was $91.67. Now the projected expense is $13,760 and the monthly MI is $140.00. Most investors have now raised the minimum credit score requirement from 620 to 640. FHA is still the best choice for borrower’s with credit scores under 660 and who may have little equity or down payment or who need higher tolerance levels for debt to income ratios.
USDA Loans
The USDA which offers a great program, or at least did, can’t seem to get its funding in order and therefore cannot issue any conditional guarantees for loans. USDA offers several advantages over conventional and FHA loans but they are proving very hard to get. If you would like more information on the availability of these loans, send me an email.
Freddie and Fannie are in more trouble with losses.
Do we shut them off and let the private sector take over? We can but rates would rise dramatically and put an even further damper on the housing market. Given that TARP actually turned a profit, I think any additional funds to rescue the GSE’s should have an opportunity for the taxpayer to make a return on the re-sold properties even if it takes years to divest the shadow inventory that they own.
Foreclosure Mess
Speaking of shadow inventory… Foreclosures are on again/off again/on again. For legal thoughts on this check out the Mass Real Estate Law Blog by Rich Vetstein and Marc Canner.
My thoughts are that although there will be a delay to ensure that the legal work has been properly done, people will unfortunately continue to lose their homes. Many will lose them due to the economic downturn or medical reasons. Others will have lost them to predatory lenders or poor decision making on their parts. I don’t really want to get started on “It was all the lender’s fault.” Needless to say, a reason the paperwork requirements exist today, is reliant upon the the lack of paperwork requirements and shoddy underwriting in the past.
I could write several scrolls on this whole mess, but I don’t wish to bore. It may already be too late.
Big Federal Reserve Meeting
Possibly the greatest short to mid-term driver for interest rates will be what the Fed decides or doesn’t decide to do at it’s next meeting. The market has baked in that the FED will ease monetary policy further. If they don’t come through in a big way the stock market most likely will drop and interest rates will rise. But how much will rates rise? Probably enough that any one who re-fied this summer won’t be able to do so again, or at least until some other economic driver comes to bear. So get off the fence and talk to your loan officer NOW.
I just finished watching the oral argument web-cast in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez controversial foreclosure case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It was a bit anti-climatic, with the judges and attorneys spending an inordinate amount of time discussing the complex, mortgage securitization documents and process.
Here’s a recap of what caught my eye:
The justices had many questions about the Wells Fargo/Option One mortgage pooling and servicing agreement, private placement memo, and other mortgage securitization documents. If you’ve read the great book, The Big Short by Michael Lewis, you know how complex these agreements are. Some of the justices clearly weren’t following the complex securitization process and agreements. Justice Ganz characterized the securitization documents as “extraordinarily sloppy.” I wonder what Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brother’s $1,000/hour corporate attorneys would think of that comment.
The justices were searching for a document in the record evidencing that Option One Mortgage was holder of mortgage that was foreclosed, as the problem in this case was that Option One had an assignment executed “in blank.” That is, without the identity of a new lender who was purchasing the mortgage on the secondary market. They were really struggling with the problems in the documentation filed with the registry of deeds in this case, which was endemic as thousand of securitized mortgages were being foreclosed.
The attorney for the lenders spent most of his time attempting to explain the securitization process to the justices. I think that took away some of the impact of the public policy arguments he was expected to make.
Chief Justice Marshall referenced the friend of the court brief filed by the Real Estate Bar Association (REBA), asking an attorney for the foreclosed homeowner whether “the sky will fall if the Land Court’s ruling is upheld”? (Answer was n0). Likewise, Justice Ganz asked what are we to do about the seemingly innocent folks who bought these foreclosed homes unaware that the titles were defective. Justice Ganz and Marshall agreed that these purchasers could be “bona fide good faith purchasers” which under the law means they could be immune from claims challenging their title. That’s an encouraging line of reasoning for many people waiting on the outcome of this case.
There was also a discussion about changing the current common law which does not require recording of mortgage assignments, to require it. Justice Marshall asked how many states required recording of mortgage assignments, giving a hint of where’s she thinking on this.
Lastly, Justice Cordy, the former big firm attorney, was clearly on the side of the lenders, even going so far as to ask whether Mr. Ibanez waive his challenge to the foreclosure by not challenging it in lower court.
As with any appeal, the Court takes several months to decide the case and render a formal written opinion. But here’s how I think this could play out. The majority of justices were deeply troubled by the “extraordinarily sloppy” paperwork surrounding the securitized mortgage documents and assignments which is the root problem here. My guess is they probably think Land Court Judge Long is right about the lender’s compliance with the foreclosure laws. They also likely think that in the current foreclosure mess, the chain of ownership of these loans should be more transparent to the consumer and those searching titles. However, the justices don’t want to hurt thousands of innocent homeowners who bought properties out of foreclosure and fixed them up, etc. Chief Justice Marshal and Justice Ganz were clearly concerned about this, and their opinions typically carry substantial weight. So, to play this down the middle, the court could uphold Judge Long’s ruling, holding that all mortgage assignments must be recorded from now on. But the court would not make the ruling retroactive as is usual, so the innocent homeowners won’t be saddled with defective titles.
There are many folks waiting out this important decision, including several of my clients. I hope the SJC will strike the right balance.
The oral argument in the much anticipated U.S. Bank v. Ibanez companion cases is Thursday October 7, 2010 at 9:00AM at the Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, One Pemberton Square, Boston, MA.
In addition to the merits of the Land Court’s ruling, watch for a discussion of whether the Land Court’s ruling will be applied retroactively, which will leave thousands of invalid foreclosure titles intact, or prospectively, which will minimize the damage of this decision. I’ve been predicting that the SJC will strike a balance by upholding the Land Court on the merits, but applying the ruling prospectively.
On the eve of arguments in the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez foreclosure case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Oct. 7, Bank of America, the nation’s largest bank, became the latest lender to halt foreclosures in 23 states because of concerns that lenders submitted faulty foreclosure court documents. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has asked Bank of America to halt foreclosures in Massachusetts, but has not filed a formal action to do so yet.
Robo-Signing
Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and other mortgage companies have been under pressure to review their paperwork after employees and contractors said in sworn depositions that, because of the enormous volume of foreclosures, they had not had the time to read the documents or check them for accuracy. This practice has been termed “robo-signing” where midlevel bank executives would sign thousands of affidavits a month attesting that they had personal knowledge that the facts of the case were as presented. When defense lawyers started deposing these robo-signers, they acknowledged that they could not possibly have knowledge of all the cases. The banks say this is a technicality and they will refile the proper affidavits. The defense lawyers say the practice calls the cases, and indeed the entire process, into question.
“To be certain affidavits have followed the correct procedures, Bank of America will delay the process in order to amend all affidavits in foreclosure cases that have not yet gone to judgment,’’ B of A spokesman Dan Frahm said in a statement.
A Bank of America executive, Renee Hertzler, said in a February deposition that she signed as many as 8,000 foreclosure documents a month without reviewing them. The deposition is similar to others taken from document processors at J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally Financial, which have also frozen foreclosures in the past week. The statements were taken by lawyers for homeowners contesting the seizure of their homes.
Foreclosures have stopped in these states: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Huge Impact
The net effect of the banks’ halt on foreclosures will be that the current frenzied pace of foreclosures will slow considerably as well as the evictions of defaulting homeowners. Also, the inventory of foreclosed properties will continue to stagnate, and will not be absorbed into the market for many, many months to years to come. This is exacerbated by title insurance companies’ unwillingness to insure over potentially defective foreclosure titles due to the errors in the process. Also, state attorney generals will surely jump on this bandwagon, demanding or suing to slow down foreclosures — a no brainer political move. All of this will have a dramatic impact on the REO market and the market as a whole.
On the flip side, some economists said the breakdown could ultimately lay the groundwork for a real estate recovery. Stricken neighborhoods across the country, for example, could benefit. One big factor undermining home sales is fear of a large number of foreclosed homes coming to the market. If the foreclosures are delayed or never happen, housing prices might find a floor.
“Maybe this is like shock therapy,” said the economist Karl E. Case. “Maybe this will actually get the lenders to the table and encourage them to work out deals that are to the benefit of everybody.”
The recent historic drop of mortgage rates has created a refinancing boom for qualified homeowners. Unfortunately, the refinancing wave washing over the country has paradoxically left dry homeowners who would most benefit: those who are “underwater.” Underwater mortgages, or “negative equity” (i.e., they owe more on the mortgage than the property is worth) cause foreclosures and serves to bottle up the housing market. Thus, assisting homeowners who are underwater on their mortgage is good public policy. According to a CoreLogic study, there are currently 11 million mortgages underwater and another 2 million nearly at negative equity in the US housing market – a figure that comprises 28% of all residential properties with a mortgage. In Massachusetts, there are 225,000 properties with negative equity and another 52,000 with near negative equity.
The government has made attempts to address this crisis. Last year the Obama Administration created a loan modification program, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, to help refinance borrowers whose loans were worth up to 125% of their homes value. The program did not take hold, and only a relatively minor number of modifications/refinances occurred.
Under the proposal, quasi-governmental entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, and the VA would require loan servicers:
To send a short application to all eligible borrowers promising to allow them to refinance with minimal paperwork.
Servicers would receive a fixed fee for each mortgage they refinanced, which would be rolled into the mortgage to eliminate costs to the taxpayers.
The agencies would issue new mortgage-backed securities to cover the refinanced mortgages, using the proceeds to pay off the loans held in the existing securities.
The proposal also mandates that existing second lien holders provide a subordination agreement (which benefits the holder because it lowers the default risk).
The program would have immediate benefits: a distressed homeowner could save approximately 15% in their monthly mortgage payment, which would greatly help homeowner’s through the current crisis.
Is there a guarantee that this modification will become law? No, there is not, but it certainly makes sense for policymakers to move on it right away.
In the words of Glen Hubbard, “[i]f we can lower mortgage payments for struggling homeowners, it will reduce future foreclosures on federally backed loans, providing savings to the taxpayers.” And that’s a good thing for everyone.
The newMortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, buried in the fine print of the much publicized Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains strict new rules aimed at preventing another sub-prime mortgage collapse.
Overview: What Is The Impact To Mortgage Lenders and Originators?
The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act certainly changes the regulatory landscape for mortgage originators who focused on high-risk, sub-prime lending, setting tougher new standards and creating new federal remedies for consumers victimized by deceptive and predatory lending. Stripped down, the Act puts the onus on mortgage lenders and originators to ensure, based on verified and documentation information, that borrowers can afford to repay the loans for which they have applied. Pretty novel idea, huh?
The new law essentially codifies good underwriting practices by requiring consideration of a borrower’s “credit history, current income, expected income the consumer is reasonably assured of receiving, current obligations, debt-to-income ratio or the residential income the consumer will have after paying non-mortgage debt and mortgage-related obligations, employment status, and other financial resources other than the consumer’s equity in the dwelling or real property that secures repayment of the loan.”
I don’t see anything in these rules that a financially prudent lender wouldn’t have already implemented in its underwriting processes. Lenders should not be placing borrowers into loans they are doomed to fail.
I’m sure these new rules will result in a few more disclosures and forms, but I don’t see this making a major impact on the conventional residential lending industry. If mortgage professionals think otherwise, I’d love to here from you. Well, onto the details:
New Minimum Mortgage Affordability Standards
The new law essentially outlaws many of the characteristics of the classic sub-prime, predatory mortgage loan, by requiring that:
The mortgage provides that regular periodic payments do not result in an increase of the principal balance of the loan or allow the consumer to defer repayment of principal.
The mortgage does not result in a balloon payment (a scheduled payment that is more than twice as large as the average of earlier scheduled payments).
The income and financial resources relied upon by the lender have been verified and documented.
The underwriting process for a fixed loan is based on a payment schedule that fully amortizes the loan over the loan term, taking into account all applicable costs.
The underwriting process for an adjustable rate loan is based on the maximum rate permitted under the loan for the first five years and a payment schedule that fully amortizes the loan over the loan term, taking into account all applicable costs.
The mortgage complies with guidelines and regulations related to ratios of total monthly debt to total monthly income or alternative measures of a borrower’s ability to pay.
The mortgage has total points and fees amounting to no more than 3 percent of the total loan amount.
The term of the loan does not exceed 30 years.
It would appear that this new law would prohibit so-called “no doc” “no income verification” loans.
The new law also imposes on lenders a duty to verify amounts of income or assets that the lender relies upon to determine the consumer’s ability to repay the loan. Again, a novel idea…In order to “safeguard against fraudulent reporting,” lenders are now required to use IRS transcripts of tax returns.
New Loan Origination Standards
The new law requires that lenders be qualified and registered as mortgage originators under the applicable federal and state laws. The significance of this registration procedure is that all loan documents will require the inclusion of the mortgage originator’s unique identifier, which is to be provided by the National Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. This will enable tracking of the bad guys.
“Steering Incentives” Prohibited
The Dodd-Frank Act will prohibit lenders from “steering” borrowers into more costly loans. It will prohibit mortgage originators from mischaracterizing the credit history of a consumer or the residential loans available to the consumer for purposes of making the loan. Mortgage originators are also prohibited from discouraging consumers from seeking a residential mortgage loan from another lender when the former is unable to suggest, offer, or recommend a loan that is not more expensive.
Predatory Loans Banned
Mortgage originators are prohibited from steering consumers to residential mortgage loans that have “predatory characteristics or effects.” “Predatory characteristics,” include equity stripping, excessive fees, or abusive terms.
Yield-Spread Premium Bonuses Outlawed
The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes new compensation limitations by prohibiting yield-spread premium bonuses, a practice, regulators argue, tends to increase the total cost of the loan to the borrower. Yield spread premiums (YSPs) are fees paid by a lender to a mortgage originator for placing a loan in a certain loan program.
Additional Liability for Mortgage Originators
The Act imposes liability on mortgage originators who fail to comply with these new minimum standards. It provides the penalty of triple damages plus the costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Watch out for class actions here!
The Massachusetts Senate recently passed wide-ranging legislation that updates the homestead law, protects tenants in foreclosed properties from arbitrary evictions, criminalizes mortgage fraud and certain unsolicited loans. The legislation, part of a series of consumer protection bills that passed the Senate, was approved unanimously.
Metrowest Senator Karen Spilka, who spearheaded the changes, writes about them on her blog (and she has a Facebook Page!).
Foreclosure Bill
Tenants in foreclosed buildings can only be evicted for just cause, or if the building is purchased by a third party. Also, a lender cannot evict a tenant for failure to pay rent unless it has posted and delivered a written notice including critical information, including a contact number for the new owner. This does not prohibit a lender from evicting tenants for other valid reasons, such as interfering with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants, using a unit for illegal purposes, or refusing to allow the lender to enter the unit to make repairs.
For homeowners, the legislation temporarily extends the 90-day right to cure period, enacted by the legislature in 2007, to 150 days. The 2007 law gave homeowners 90 days to come up with past due payments on their mortgage, before the lender could require full payment of unpaid balance. This was intended as a cooling off period for the lender and homeowner to work out a new payment plan to avoid foreclosure.
Bill requires at least one meeting or telephone conversation between the homeowner and the lender to discuss a commercially reasonable alternative to foreclosure. The lender’s representative must have the authority to agree to the revised terms. The right to cure period can be reduced from 150 days to 90 days if the lender makes a good faith effort to negotiate a commercially reasonable alternative to foreclosure.
Allows the 150-day right to cure to be granted once every 3 years; currently, the 90-day right to cure is only available once every 5 years.
Creates a 2-year pilot program within the Division of Banks that requires all property owners, including lenders, trustees, and service companies, to register and maintain vacant and/or foreclosing properties in the Commonwealth.
Coverage on this bill from the Boston Globe can be found here.
Homestead Law Update
Updates the homestead law to protect up to $500,000 of a home’s value. It also includes unsecured debts, such as credit card debt, that were incurred before the homestead was filed.
Extending homestead protection to manufactured homes, and multifamily properties of up to 4 units.
Requiring homeowners with more than one property to file a declaration, signed under the penalty of perjury, of which dwelling is their primary residence and therefore eligible for homestead protection to avoid fraud.
Clarifying that the proceeds of fire/casualty insurance or sales/takings are protected from creditors. Fire/casualty proceeds are protected until re-occupancy; a homestead is declared on new home; or for 2 years after the date of the fire/casualty.
Protecting the proceeds from sales or taking until a new homestead is declared or for 1 year, whichever occurs first.
Allowing trustees of trusts to file homestead declarations on behalf of trust beneficiaries who reside in the property as their principal place of residence.
Creates an automatic homestead of $125,000 for all homeowners.
Other Consumer Protection Provisions
As advocated by the Attorney General, the bill would criminalize residential mortgage fraud.
Prohibits financial institutions and lenders from sending consumers unsolicited loans which are a negotiable check, money order, draft or other instrument that may be used to unknowingly activate a loan that was not solicited by the consumer. 10 day right of rescission on these loan products.
The three bills now move to the House of Representatives for further action.
The homestead law update is long-awaited and much needed. I wrote about it in the Fall here.
The foreclosure bill is quite a victory for tenant and distressed property owner advocates.
Since we’ve written about the case extensively here, Steve asked for my views about the impact of the case and recent matters I’ve handled with Ibanez title defects:
Framingham real estate attorney Richard Vetstein recently represented a family who had bought a house out of foreclosure about a year ago, then invested in excess of $100,000 in improvements to the property with the intention of selling it to their daughter. But before they could complete the sale, a title issue came up and put the transaction on hold.
In Vetstein’s client’s case, when the original owner was foreclosed upon, the mortgage company did not have a properly recorded assignment. To clear the title, Vetstein had to track down the original owner in Alabama, and persuade him to sign over the deed to the property.
“They can close now that the title issue is solved, but in a lot of cases that [is] not going to be able to be solved,” said Vetstein. “We were lucky, that’s what it came down to.”
Steve asked me how I would handicap the appeal of the case:
Vetstein, who has blogged on the Ibanez case at length, thinks the court might uphold the Ibanez decision.
“Given the current constitution of the court and their tendencies of recent years to be kind of moving towards some pro-consumer decisions, I wouldn’t be surprised if they upheld the land court probably by a slim margin,” Vetstein said. “And so for people who are stuck with an Ibanez issue, that is in essence the worst-case scenario.”
Indeed, it’s unlikely that a “pro-consumer” verdict upholding the Ibanez decision would actually help consumers on the whole. Home buyers or investors who thought they had gotten a good deal and a clean title on a foreclosed property will instead be saddled with hefty legal bills and an inability to sell their property.
Lastly, Steve asked if the Ibanez ruling has created an business development opportunties for real estate attorneys:
“I don’t know of any real estate attorney using Ibanez as a business development opportunity, mainly because solving these title defects, if at all, is incredibly difficult and in some cases impossible,” Vetstein said. “It’s a ‘lose-lose’ in many situations.”
One aspect of the case could potentially provide plenty of work for attorneys. Should the SJC uphold the Ibanez decision, Vetstein reasons that there will be many claims against the foreclosing lenders and the foreclosure attorney, for failing to convey good title.
“There will also be claims for rescission of these transactions,” he added. “There is a class action against lenders and foreclosing attorneys which could encompass many millions in potential damages.”
Banker & Tradesman is a great publication. If you don’t want a paid subscription, you can follow them on Twitter and Facebook.
Update (July 27, 2010): Oral argument is scheduled for October 7, 2010.
Good news for those eagerly following the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, which invalidated thousands of foreclosures across the state. On March 22, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the highest appellate court in the state) agreed to take the case on direct appellate review (as I originally predicted). This sets the stage for one of the most important real estate decisions in recent years.
The SJC’s acceptance of the case now expedites what will be the final word in this case, good news for everyone affected by this ruling. A final decision, however, is still many months away. Both sides still have to file briefs, and the case will be scheduled for oral argument probably within 4-5 months, with a decision coming several months later. (Appeals take time).
Click here and here for my prior posts on this case. Here is Globe reporter Jenifer McKim’s story on the development.
Update (3/24/10): SJC Accepts Ibanez Case
For those of you following the controversial U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, which invalidated potentially thousands of foreclosures across the state, both sides last week asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to take the case — as I originally predicted. The SJC’s acceptance of the case would cut months to years off the normal appellate process. This would be great news for everyone eagerly awaiting a final decision.
Click here for Ibanez’s petition to the SJC. Click here for my post on the first ruling and here for my post on the second ruling in the Ibanez case.
The SJC should decide whether to take the case within 30 days or so, and I predict they will take it on. However, I still think the SJC will ultimately affirm Judge Long’s ruling against foreclosing lenders, a bad decision from a title and conveyancing standpoint in my view.
Meanwhile, in the aftermath of Ibanez, some lenders are re-doing foreclosures and some are just waiting it out. Most title insurance companies are unwilling to touch an Ibanez afflicted property with a ten foot pole.
I recently assisted a buyer of a foreclosed property who was initially rejected by two title insurers. We fortunately convinced one title company to insure over an Ibanez issue, so the client could close. But I have another client who is stuck, and we’re trying to track down the original owner of the property to obtain a deed. It’s a tough situation all around.
In the spirit of the New Year, let’s look back at the top legal issues of the past year and peer into the crystal ball for a glimpse at 2010.
Top 5 Posts For 2009
#1. The Catch-22 Impact of New Fannie Mae Condominium Regulations. In January, Fannie Mae was the first government agency to drop a big bucket of cold water on condominium lending underwriting practices which some say contributed to the condominium market meltdown. FHA and others would follow later in the year. The new guidelines had condominium developers and associations, buyers and sellers in a tizzy, as Fannie Mae imposed much tougher pre-sale requirements, condominium financial guidelines and the imposition of unit owner HO-6 insurance policies, among other requirements.
#2. New FHA Condominium Lending Guidelines Sure To Slow Financing and Chill Sales. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) followed Fannie’s lead in tightening condominium lending requirements. Originally proposed over the summer, FHA delayed implementation of the new guidelines until earlier in the month and watered down some of the most stringent requirements, after major lenders and community association groups complained.
#3. There’s Nothing Standard About The Massachusetts Standard Purchase and Sale Agreement. Great to see a post about buying a new home ranking so highly. An indicator of the recovery of the Massachusetts real estate market perhaps? Check out this post for the ins and outs of the very seller friendly standard form P&S and how to level the playing field if you are a buyer.
#4. Massachusetts Land Court Reaffirms Controversial Ibanez Decision Invalidating Thousands of Foreclosures. If you were following the foreclosure mess, you couldn’t have missed this judicial bomb dropped by Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long. The so-called Ibanez ruling invalidated thousands of foreclosures across the state because the lenders did not record their paperwork up to date at the registries of deeds. Lenders have appealed the ruling, but hundreds of foreclosure titles remain unmarketable in the wake of this controversial decision. More to come in 2010.
#5. Short Sales Get Boost From New Obama Treasury Guidelines. On December 1, the Obama administration set long-awaited guidance on a plan for mortgage companies to speed up short sales of homes and other loan modification alternatives to stem the rising tide of foreclosures. The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program provides financial incentives and simplifies the procedures for completing short sales, a growing practice in which a lender agrees to accept the sale price of a home to pay off a mortgage even if the price falls short of the amount owed.
All signs are pointing to a real estate rebound for the Bay State in 2010, with home and condominium sales surging over 50% from last year in November. I have definitely seen an uptick in new purchases on my end and we are preparing for a busy 2010. Along with good news from the real estate market, however, comes higher interest rates as the bond market reacts to positive news. My friend mortgage consultant Brian Cavanaugh at SmarterBorrowing.com does a good weekly mortgage market update and is presently advising borrowers to lock into current rates as he predicts rates will rise in 2010 to close to 6% for a 30 year fixed. Of course, when rates go up, buying power goes down, thereby cooling the market a bit.
Regulatory
Hopefully we’ve seen the end of increased regulation of the condominium market from the government giants. Let’s toast that they can let the market take its course with the new guidelines in effect.
Stimulus/Home Buyer Credit
As the economy continues to recover, you can probably bet that the Obama administration is going to let up on the stimulus/credit throttle for 2010. So take advantage of all the credits available now, because this is probably the last you will see of them for awhile.
Lastly, technology, the internet and social media will play an even bigger role in how realtors, lenders and real estate attorneys do business. The National Association of Realtors says that 87% of home buyers use the Internet to search for homes. I tell all my Realtor friends they must have a strong Internet presence and to take advantage of blogging, social media and Active Rain to boost their online presence.
For attorneys, in 2009 we saw the tip of the iceberg for electronic recordings and closings as well as online transaction management. Our office just set up an online transaction management system where buyers, sellers, loan officers and realtors can view the status of the loan whenever they want through a secure online portal. It’s a fantastic tool. While electronic closings are a way’s away from gaining the necessary critical mass of lender acceptance, many Massachusetts registries of deeds are now e-recording, and that will continue to rise. The next decade will certainly bring electronic closings and paperless transactions into the norm.
Well, let’s clink our glasses to a very happy, healthy and fruitful New Year!
I’ve been asked several times recently for an update on the status of Land Court judge Keith Long’s controversial ruling in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, which invalidated thousands of foreclosures across Massachusetts. Click here for my prior post on the case.
Unfortunately for those affected by the decision, not much is going on. Lenders have reportedly appealed the decision. Word has it that the lenders have hired mega-firm K&L Gates to handle the appeal. (Interestingly, K&L Gates is the same firm which secured a major ruling against the Massachusetts Real Estate Bar Association over non-attorneys handling real estate closings in Massachusetts).
The record in the Land Court is currently being assembled. The Massachusetts Appellate Court database doesn’t even list the case as yet up on appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is many, many months away from being decided.
Also, watch for the lenders to ask the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to take the case on direct appeal. While this will delay the appeal some in the short term, the SJC is the final stop on the appellate railway, and its decision is the final word on the matter. Given the pro-consumer decisions recently issued by the high court and its current makeup of somewhat liberal justices, my money is still on an unfavorable decision for lenders in this case.
In the meantime, I’m hearing that lenders are simply re-doing their foreclosures with the correct loan paperwork (i.e., the mortgage assignments) brought up to date. For buyers who had an agreement to purchase a foreclosed home, this most likely means you will have to wait in line again and re-bid on the second foreclosure.
Divorce, unfortunately, often plays a major role in real estate transactions and decisions. The tough economy has added insult to injury for those unfortunate souls facing divorce in Massachusetts.
Quincy, Massachusetts Divorce and Family Law Attorney Gabriel Cheong offers great advice on his blog, the Massachusetts Divorce Lawyer Blog, about what to do if you are getting a divorce and the marital home is “underwater.” That is, when the balance on the mortgage is more than the fair market value of the house:
You’re divorcing and you need to sell your house that you own jointly with your spouse but with the recession, your house is now worth less than the mortgage that you have on it. You’re under water. You’re upside down on your mortgage. Whatever you call it, you’re stuck and don’t know what to do.
Well, here are your choices:
You stay in the house with your divorced spouse until either one of you can afford to move out or refinance. You might be thinking to yourself that that is ridiculous. Who would ever live with their divorced spouse AFTER the divorce?! More and more people are doing so in this new economy because there is simply not enough money to go around. It’s a sucky situation but it’s a reality.
You and your spouse continue to co-own the house together until someone can refinance the property. Either you live in the house or your spouse lives in the house. You could have a situation where only the person who’s living in the house pays for everything or everything is split 50/50. Either way, you two will still own a house together.
You refinance. If you try to refinance, know that you will have to put up the money to make up the difference between what you owe and what your house is worth. That would be tens of thousands of dollars if not more. Some people have that kind of money but most do not.
You do a short sale. A short sale is when you get the permission of your mortgage lender to sell the house for less than what you owe on the mortgage and hopefully, you negotiate that you won’t have to make up the difference. Know that most lenders will not extend the option for a short sale unless if you’re behind on your mortgage payments by several months. At that point, your credit would’ve taken a hit already.
You let the home go into foreclosure. This is not an ideal situation and it’s not generally recommended.
You try to negotiate a modification or an assumption of the current mortgage. This is very difficult and very lender specific. Some will let you modify the loan or do an assumption whereby you don’t have to refinance the house and yet be allowed to remove a spouse’s name off the mortgage. It’s worth a try.
Those are all your options. The important thing to remember is this: do not ever sign over a deed to the house over to your spouse’s sole name without also being off [released from] the mortgage. If you do so, you will have no equity interest in the property yet be liable for the mortgage (debt interest).
As Attorney Cheong outlines, it’s a tough pill to swallow for those in the unfortunate predicament of divorcing in this recessionary economy. I’ve heard stories of divorcing spouses creating separate living quarters in a house, akin to an in-law suite with separate entrances, etc.
From a real estate perspective, preserving the value of the property is paramount and in the best financial interests of both spouses (and the children). With the enactment of the new Obama short sale regulations, a short sale may be a good option for divorcing couples who are “under water.” The new regulations require that the lender agree to waive the outstanding loan balance on an approved short sale, so both spouses can wipe their credits clean of the mortgage obligations and move on with their lives.
If you are in the middle of a divorce, feel free to contact me, Richard D. Vetstein, and I can work with your divorce attorney to ensure that you’ll be protected in any refinance, short sale, loan modification, or foreclosure situation.
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.
