Mortgages

Weekly Massachusetts Mortgage Rate Lock Report (Dec. 12, 2011)

by Rich Vetstein on December 12, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Mortgages

Brian Cavanaugh of SmarterBorrowing.com is back with his Massachusetts Weekly Mortgage Rate Update. Scroll to the bottom for Brian’s valuable Massachusetts Mortgage Rate Lock Advice!

Inquire within for current Mortgage Rates or Guidelines   [email protected]  617.771.5021

Overall, I am expecting to see a much more active week in the financial markets and mortgage pricing than last week. The most important day of the week is either Tuesday or Friday due to the reports being posted those days and the FOMC meeting scheduled. Please maintain contact with your mortgage professional if you have not locked an interest rate yet because we may see sizable changes to mortgage pricing more than one day this week.

If I were considering financing/refinancing a home, I would….

LOCK if my closing was taking place within 7 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 8 and 20 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 21 and 60 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place over 60 days from now…

Busy Week Ahead

This week is fairly busy in terms of the number of economic releases and other events scheduled that may influence mortgage rates. There are only four pieces of economic data for us to watch, but three of them are highly important to the markets. In addition to the economic reports, we also have the last FOMC meeting of the year and two important Treasury auctions that are likely to impact bond trading and mortgage pricing. Those events, coupled with the likelihood of further overseas developments from Europe and possibly others, make it highly likely that we will see plenty of movement in the markets and mortgage rates this week.

There is nothing of relevance scheduled for tomorrow. This means we can expect the stock markets to drive bond trading and mortgage rates again. If the major stock indexes open the week with gains tomorrow morning, bonds may move lower, pushing mortgage rates higher. But a weak open in stocks could lead to slightly lower mortgage rates tomorrow. We could also see traders position themselves ahead of the week’s agenda, so even though there is nothing concerning on the calendar, we could see mortgage rates change.

Consumer Price Index Out

The week’s most important economic data comes Friday morning when November’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) is posted. It is similar to Thursday’s Producer Price Index, except it tracks inflationary pressures at the more important consumer level of the economy. Current forecasts call for an increase of 0.1% in the overall index and a 0.1% rise in the core data reading. The core data is watched more closely because it excludes more volatile food and energy prices, giving a more stable reading for analysts to consider. This data is one of the most watched inflation indexes, which is extremely important to long-term securities such as mortgage related bonds. Rising inflation erodes the value of a bond’s future fixed interest payments, making them less appealing to investors. That translates into falling bond prices and rising mortgage rates.

Retail Sales Report

Tuesday has two important events, starting with November’s Retail Sales report. This 8:30 AM ET release will give us a key measurement of consumer spending by tracking sales at retail level establishments. This data is highly important to the markets because consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the U.S. economy. Rapidly rising consumer spending raises the possibility of seeing solid economic growth. Since long-term securities such as mortgage bonds are usually more appealing to investors during weaker economic conditions, a large increase in retail sales will likely drive bond prices lower and mortgage rates higher Tuesday. Current forecasts are calling for an increase of 0.6% in November’s sales.

Last Fed Meeting

The last FOMC meeting of the year will also be held Tuesday, adjourning at 2:15 PM ET. There is not much debate about what the Fed will do at this meeting with no chance of them raising key short-term interest rates. Therefore, the post meeting statement will likely be the sole source of a market reaction. This statement has the potential to have a significant influence on the markets and mortgage rates as investors look for any indication of what and when the Fed may do next. One potential move would be more debt purchases by the Fed. An announcement of another round of quantitative easing (QE3) could help boost bond prices and improve mortgage rates Tuesday afternoon. Besides that, it is believed that there isn’t much more the Fed can do to help boost economic activity.

Treasury Auctions

There are Treasury auctions scheduled for several days this week, but the two important ones are the 10-year Note sale Tuesday and the 30-year Bond sale Wednesday. Tuesday’s auction is the more important of the two and will likely influence mortgage rates more. Results of each sale will be posted at 1:00 PM ET. If they were met with a strong demand from investors, particularly international buyers, we should see afternoon strength in bonds and improvements to mortgage pricing those days. On the other hand, a weak interest in the auctions could lead to upward revisions to mortgage rates during afternoon hours.

Wednesday has little to be concerned with, except for the 30-year Bond auction. November’s Producer Price Index (PPI) will be posted early Thursday morning. It measures inflationary pressures at the producer level of the economy. There are two portions of the index that are used- the overall reading and the core data reading. The core data is the more important of the two because it excludes more volatile food and energy prices. If Thursday’s release reveals stronger than expected readings, indicating that inflationary pressures are rising, the bond market will probably react negatively and drive mortgage rates higher. If we see in-line or weaker than expected numbers, the bond market should respond well and mortgage rates should fall. Current forecasts are showing a 0.2% increase in the overall index and a 0.1% rise in the core data.

Nov. Industrial Production Report

November’s Industrial Production data is also scheduled to be posted Thursday morning, but a little later than the PPI. This report gives us a measurement of manufacturing sector strength by tracking output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities. Analysts are expecting it to show a 0.2% increase in output, indicating modest manufacturing growth. A smaller than expected rise would be good news for bonds, while a stronger reading may result in slightly higher mortgage pricing. However, the PPI release is more important to the markets than this data is.

  • Are you a possible Massachusetts First Time Homebuyer?
  • Do you have a Real Estate client inquiring about current Mortgage Rates?
  • Do you have any Refinancing questions?
  • Should you be thinking about Refinancing out of your ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage)?
  • Have your Real Estate clients been Pre Approved?

[email protected]  617.771.5021

This is only my opinion of what I would do if I were financing a home. It is only an opinion and cannot be guaranteed to be in the best interest of all/any other borrowers.

{ 0 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on December 2, 2011

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

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

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

With all the hoopla yesterday surrounding Attorney General Martha Coakley’s monumental lawsuit against the big banks over foreclosure practices, the Supreme Judicial Court on November 29, 2011 quietly agreed to hear an appeal over whether a lender holding a securitized mortgage has standing to even begin a foreclosure action in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act–one of the first steps in the Massachusetts foreclosure process.

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

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

First Steps: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

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

Lower Court Opinion

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

SJC Takes Appeal Sua Sponte

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

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

The Land Court’s ruling is embedded below.

HSBC Bank v. Jodi Matt

{ 3 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on December 1, 2011

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

Mass. AG Martha Coakley Credit: Reuters

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

AG Martha Coakley Files Major Civil Action Against Big Banks

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

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

Here is a link to the AG’s Complaint.

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

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

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

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

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

Judge William G. Young

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services

{ 7 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on November 8, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Unification Theory

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

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

Impact & What’s Next?

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

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

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

Adamson v. MERS Decision

{ 0 comments }

Will This HARP Carry A Tune? Obama Revamps Underwater Refinance Program

by Rich Vetstein on October 25, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Mortgages

Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) Revamped

Homeowners who have not been able to refinance because they are “underwater” — their loans are more than the value of their home due to depressed real estate values — are being thrown a lifeline by the Obama Administration’s latest housing market rescue plan, announced yesterday.

Regulators are revamping a program rolled out in 2009, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, which lets borrowers with homes whose values have dropped to refinance. So far, only 894,000 borrowers have used it, of which just 70,000 are significantly underwater. The refinancing program is open to homeowners whose mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae (FNMA) or Freddie Mac (FMCC), the two government-controlled mortgage giants whose rescue three years ago has cost taxpayers $141 billion to date.

The FHFA said the changes could at least double the number of homeowners enrolled. Analysts at Barclays Capital, however, estimated that between 1.9 million and 3.1 million homeowners could be eligible for help.

But underwater homeowners, as long as they have made all their mortgage payments on time in the past six months and meet a few other basic criteria, such as being gainfully employed, would be eligible for a new refinance product just rolled out by the Obama Administration.

According to Scott Van Voorhis at Boston.com, an estimated 230,000 homeowners across Massachusetts are underwater on their mortgages, owing an average of $120,000 more than what their properties are actually worth now. The savings could prove substantial, with $3,000 in savings each year on a $200,000 mortgage that is refinanced from 6 percent down to 4.5 percent, according to this explanatory piece put out by the Associated Press.

Given higher home prices here in Greater Boston, that could amount to $6,000 in savings a year for a homeowner with a $400,000 mortgage — nothing to sneeze at.

If this HARP finally sings a tune, it will be cause for joy among borrowers, mortgage bankers, and closing attorneys across the state. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate closing attorney. Please contact him if you need a mortgage referral or assistance with a refinance or purchase transaction.

{ 1 comment }

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

by Rich Vetstein on October 18, 2011

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

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

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

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

The Bad News

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

The Good News

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

Background: Developer Buys Defective Foreclosure Title

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

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

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

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

No Standing To “Try Title” Action In Land Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Remedies & What’s Next?

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

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

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

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

More Coverage:

_____________________________________

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

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

{ 18 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on October 3, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Borrower Able To Stop Foreclosure

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

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

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

Pointed Questions During Oral Argument

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

Fannie Mae Arguments

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

That concluded the Fannie Mae side.

Eaton Arguments

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

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

What’s Next?

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

_______________________________________________________

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

{ 12 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on September 30, 2011

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

Updated: Click Here For Our Oral Argument Recap

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

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

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

~Rich

_______________________________________________________

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

{ 1 comment }

The Trilogy: Explaining the Deed, Promissory Note and Mortgage at a Massachusetts Closing

by Rich Vetstein on September 9, 2011

in Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages

Prospective real estate buyers tend to think of the “mortgage” as the contract they are signing with the bank. This is misleading. The promissory note is the actual contract to loan and borrow money between lender and borrower. The mortgage is the lender’s instrument, or more accurately, its security interest, to enforce that loan contract. This is an important distinction because, if for example, a couple purchases property or refinances, and the loan is taken out solely in the wife’s name, then lining up the correct parties on the signing documents becomes important. But before discussing how to properly configure the closing documents, it is important to understand the definitions.

The Deed

The deed is the legal instrument conveying an ownership interest of the property to a grantee (buyer). The deed is typically drafted by the seller’s attorney. It includes the grantor (seller), the grantee (buyer), the manner in which the buyer is taking title (the tenancy), the consideration (the amount of the purchase price), a legal description of the property, and a cite to the recording information of the prior deed. Click here for an example of a Massachusetts quitclaim deed.

The Promissory Note

The promissory note is the lending contract between the borrower and the lender. The note includes the name(s) of the borrower and the property address. It also includes the amount of the loan, the term (number of years), and the interest rate. The lender generates the note and uses a FannieMae/ Freddie Mac standard template which reflects that it is a uniform instrument. A typical note includes a provision of whether the loan is fixed or adjustable, contains a “no pre-payment fee” clause, and includes language that sets the deadline for the 15th of the month for the lender to receive payment (and sets out a late fee penalty). Click here for a standard form Fannie Mae promissory note.

The Mortgage

The mortgage is the lender’s security interest in the property. In Massachusetts, a “title state,” the borrower is conveying his ownership interest in the home to the lender, such interest would be exercised only in the event of default. Thus, the lender has a lien on the property, which gives it authority to foreclose in the event of continued non-payment. The mortgage is also a uniform instrument whose template is typically generated by the lender and designed and approved by the above-referenced government housing agencies. The only unique terms in the mortgage are the names of the borrowers, the property address and the exhibit which provides a legal description of the property. The rest of the mortgage is standard, providing that the borrower agrees to keep the property insured and maintained, make it her primary residence (unless it’s an investment loan), and not to contaminate the property with hazardous waste, among other requirements. Click here for a sample Massachusetts Fannie Mae mortgage.

Thus, to return to our example, if husband and wife purchase a home and only wife is to be on the loan, then the grantees on the deed are husband and wife, reflecting their ownership interest in the property. The note will contain only the wife (since she alone is taking out the loan). The mortgage however must contain both owners of the property since this instrument tracks the deed. Thus, the husband and wife are both on the mortgage.

After the closing attorney explains the deed, mortgage and promissory note, there are a stack of other loan documents and disclosure to review. We’ve written posts about all the important ones:

Good luck with your closing!

__________________________________________

Attorney Marc E. Canner brings years of experience working closely with Buyers, Sellers, mortgage brokers, loan officers and realtors to provide expert counsel on closing residential real estate transactions. Marc is the founding partner of the Law Offices of Marc E. Canner and a founder of TitleHub Closing Services LLC.

{ 5 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on September 8, 2011

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

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

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

Oral Argument Analysis (10/3/11)

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

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

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

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

Where’s The Note?

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

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

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

Potential Impacts Far and Wide

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________

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

{ 13 comments }

Mass. Bankruptcy Judge Voids Foreclosure Of MERS Mortgage

by Rich Vetstein on August 23, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Debtor Challenges Foreclosure Of Securitized Mortgage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________

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

 

In Re Schwartz

{ 20 comments }

Mortgage Lending Advisory: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA Conforming Loan Limits Dropping On Sept. 30th!

by Rich Vetstein on August 15, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Refinances

Fannie Mae and FHA Conforming Loan Limits Dropping.  Close by 9/30/2011 or sooner!

A guest post by David Gaffin, Senior Mortgage Lender, from Greenpark Mortgage.

David Gaffin, Greenpark Mortgage

As Congress lets the temporary increase in conforming loan limits expire October 1st, we have received word that some investors will require that all loans affected by these limits close on or before September 30, 2011. Other investors will have their own timelines and will require closings earlier, perhaps weeks earlier.

I have attached a chart below indicating the new loan limits for 1-4 family residences through 12/31/2011 for some investors. 2012 Loan limits for Fannie and Freddie have yet to be announced. For Massachusetts this reduction will impact the these areas as follows: Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket: Reduced from $729,750 to $625,500; , Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk Counties reduced from $523,750 to $465,750; Bristol county will be reduced to $426,650; Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester Counties will remain at $417,000.

Please follow the attached chart for the max loan amounts. It is indicated by county.

                                               1 Family 2 Family 3 Family 4 Family

BRISTOL MA

$426,650

$546,200

$660,200

$820,500
DUKES

MA

$625,500

$800,775

$967,950

$1,202,925
ESSEX

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
FRANKLIN

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950
HAMPDEN

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950
HAMPSHIRE

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950
MIDDLESEX

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
NANTUCKET

MA

$625,500

$800,775

$967,950

$1,202,925
NORFOLK

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
PLYMOUTH

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
SUFFOLK

MA

$465,750

$596,250

$720,700

$895,700
WORCESTER

MA

$417,000

$533,850

$645,300

$801,950

You can also access other states via the website: http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=185 and click on the HERA Loan Limits at the bottom of the page.

With respect to FHA, more pain is ahead as FHA seeks to lower its market share and reduce exposure. Loan limits decreases will affect Massachusetts dramaticaly, as the chart below indicates:

Continuing HERA Median
Appropriations Limit House Year
Act of Price of Median
Limit 2011 2011 for House
(1-unit) (1-unit) Difference Area Price
MA BarnstableCounty

$462,500

$405,950

($56,550)

$353,000

2008
MA BristolCounty

$475,000

$426,650

($48,350)

$371,000

2008
MA DukesCounty

$729,750

$625,500

($104,250)

$626,000

2010
MA EssexCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA FranklinCounty

$318,750

$274,850

($43,900)

$239,000

2010
MA HampdemCounty

$318,750

$274,850

($43,900)

$239,000

2010
MA HampshireCounty

$318,750

$274,850

($43,900)

$239,000

2010
MA MiddlesexCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA NantucketCounty

$729,750

$625,500

($104,250)

$1,325,000

2009
MA NorfolkCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA PlymouthCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA SuffolkCounty

$523,750

$465,750

($58,000)

$405,000

2008
MA WorcesterCounty

$385,000

$285,200

($99,800)

$248,000

2008

 

Worcester County will get killed! With Loan Limits dropping by almost $100,000, FHA will be effectively increasing the down payment requirements for buyers, if they wish to purchase a home over $298,000. This will have an impact on home prices. FHA is also good for buyers who have less than 740 credit scores. Fannie has price adjustments for lower Ficos and these raise the interest rates to borrowers. The towns of Milford, Westborough, Northborough, Shrewbury, Northborough, among others could be hard hit.

Bottom line, Take advantage of the low interest rates and higher loan limits now. Greenpark is currently accepting purchase loans for the higher limits until 8/25/2011, to close by 9/30/2011.

Please send me an email me, [email protected] with any questions and thank you for reading.

{ 0 comments }

FHA Stays In Condominium Game With Issuance Of Revised Lending Guidelines

by Rich Vetstein on July 5, 2011

in Condominium Law, FHA, HUD, Mortgages

Good News For First Time Condo Buyers

FHA loan programs offer low down payment mortgages which are often ideal for first time home buyers who lack cash for a 20% down payment but are otherwise strong borrowers. On June 30, 2011, FHA confirmed its commitment to financing condominiums with the issuance of revised lending guidelines (HUD Mortgagee Letter 11-22). The new FHA Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide can be downloaded here.

“Today, we institute revised guidelines that preserve FHA’s role in the condo marketplace during these difficult times while making certain we manage risk in a responsible way,” said FHA’s Acting Commissioner Robert Ryan. “This guidance formalizes and expands the policies we put in place in 2009 and lays the groundwork for a more formal rulemaking process going forward.”

Highlights Of New Guidelines

1.  Reserve Study Requirements:
New guidelines require reserve studies on all conversion (i.e., new) developments. Reserve Studies are valid for a period of 2 years.

2.  Reserve Funding
In addition to a reserve study determination, a minimum of 10% of the operating budget must be set aside as a baseline in a reserve account. Funds to cover the total cost of any item in the Reserve Study or that will require replacement within 5 years must be deposited in HOA’s reserve account. The insurance deductible must also be included in the reserve fund.

3.  Delinquent Condo Fees

On existing projects, the condominium cannot have more than a 15% delinquency rate on unpaid condo fees. This could be a problem for struggling condominiums. A waiver may be granted, however, with supporting documentation.

4. Pending Litigation

Litigation impacting the financing soundness of the condominium must be disclosed and explained to FHA. Again, this could be problematic if the condominium is involved in, for example, a lawsuit with the original developer over construction defects.

5. HO-6 Policies

Individual HO-6 insurance policies are required if the master condo insurance policy does not provide interior unit coverage (which most don’t).

6. Fidelity Bonds For Large Projects

Fidelity insurance to protect against employee dishonesty is required for projects over 20 units.

7. New Construction Pre-Sale
New Construction pre-sale requirements remain at 30%, although only for one year after the first closing. After the first year, it increases to 50% for the development.

8.  Maximum Commercial Concentration
Remains at 25%, however, new guidance allows for possible waiver request up to 35% of the development.

9. 10% Investor Concentration
No longer includes sponsor unsold units or units required to be rented by State or Municipality, ie; rent stabilized/rent controlled.

 

{ 1 comment }

The Jedi Master Mortgage Discharge Tracker

by Rich Vetstein on June 27, 2011

in Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Title Defects, Title Insurance

yodaDon’t Let An Undischarged Mortgage Ruin Your Closing

Real estate attorneys are often confronted with difficult and complex title defects which need to be cured. With the refinancing boom of the last 10 years, sloppy, high-volume closing attorneys occasionally failed to obtain discharges of mortgage they were paying off at closing. Likewise, home equity closings at local bank branches were also notorious for not tracking down and recording mortgage discharges.

These undischarged mortgages and “missing” discharges from years ago rear their ugly heads when the homeowner goes to sell his property and a full 50 year title examination is undertaken by a competent closing attorney. Some of these missing discharges are from old banks and financial institutions which have gone bankruptcy, are now in FDIC receivership, or were merged with other banks several times. Some are with private lenders who are no where to be found. Of course, title must be cleared prior to closing or there is no closing!

This is when even the most experienced real estate closing attorney has to call in the cavalry. And that person is someone like Kurt Stuckel, Esq.

I like to call Kurt the Jedi Master Discharge Tracker. Operating out of a small office in little Pepperell, Mass., Attorney Stuckel handles and solves thousands of title requests every year for real estate attorneys and title companies throughout the Commonwealth. He’s handled several thorny issues for me in recent months – even one where I thought “there’s no way he can get this one” from the FDIC–and low and behold, he did. His fees are reasonable, and he makes the closing attorney look good in front of their clients.

If you are in need of excellent title curative services, please contact Kurt Stuckel, Esq. at 978.443.5241 or email at [email protected]. And tell him I sent you!

{ 2 comments }

The Massachusetts Land Court: One Stop Shopping For All Your Real Estate Needs

by Rich Vetstein on June 12, 2011

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Permitting/Zoning, Real Estate Litigation, Real Estate Taxes, Title Defects, Zoning

220px-OldSuffolkCoCtThe Real Estate Specialty Court

Established in 1898 and still staffed with only a handful of judges, the Massachusetts Land Court is the smallest of all the Massachusetts trial courts. But for real estate practitioners, it is the most important court in the Commonwealth.

The Land Court is known for its real estate expertise, and is the starting place for almost all foreclosures. Its judges, most of whom were practicing real estate attorneys, are widely regarded as experts in the intricacies of Massachusetts real estate law. Indeed, the diminutive Land Court has recently been at the forefront of national foreclosure law with Judge Keith Long’s seminal decision in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez which made national front page news for several days.

Registered Land

The Land Court was originally established to oversee the Massachusetts land registration system. Approximately 15-20% of all property in Massachusetts is registered land. Non-registered land is referred to as recorded land.

The purpose of the registered land system — modeled after the Australian Torrens system — is to make land titles as clear and defect-free as possible. To register land, property owners have to go through a fairly rigorous process where a land court title examiner searches and certifies title and a formal plan of the land is approved. All defects and title issues are fully vetted and resolved, if possible, and upon registration, the land is deemed free of defects except noted by the examiner, including claims of adverse possession.

Registered land is freely transferable, and there is no discernible difference in examining title to registered land, other than recording which involves a few more steps than non-registered land.

Foreclosures

The Land Court is widely known as the starting point for the vast majority of foreclosures in Massachusetts. Although Massachusetts is considered a “non-judicial” foreclosure state — that is, where a mortgage holder does not need a court order to foreclosure — the state has held onto the U.S. Soldier’s and Sailor’s Civil Relief Act which gives military members protections against foreclosure. In Massachusetts, mortgage holders bring a “Soldier’s and Sailor’s Act” proceeding in the Land Court to ensure that the property owner is not an active military member. Once the Land Court issues a judgment, the foreclosure can move forward. A Soldier’s and Sailor’s proceeding is not the forum in which to challenge a foreclosure. A homeowner needs to file a separate lawsuit in Superior Court or Land Court to do so.

Quiet Title, Partition and Title Disputes

In the last 20 years, lawmakers have widely expanded the Land Court’s jurisdiction to hear more types of cases. Today, the Land Court regularly hears cases involving zoning and subdivision appeals, quiet title and actions to try title, disputes involving mortgage priorities, tax takings, adverse possession, real estate contract disputes, petitions to partition, and more. I do most of my litigation work in the Land Court’s civil session.

Strategically, certain cases are better off in the Land Court and vice-versa. An important distinction with Land Court is that there are no jury trials. Thus, if you want a jury trial, the case should be filed in Superior Court, not Land Court. For cases which are based on the interpretation of contractual language or complex real estate legal issues, Land Court is probably a good choice. For cases which have an “emotional” component and less complex, a Superior Court jury session is probably the better choice.

New Permitting Session

Most recently, in 2007, the Legislature created a special Land Court permitting session to hear zoning and subdivision appeals for larger projects involving over 25 units or over 25,000 square feet of gross floor area. With the goal to expedite zoning disputes which have roadblocked development, cases in the new session will be assigned to a single judge for the life of the case and will be assigned one of three expedited tracks. For the first time, these tracks provide deadlines for both getting to trial (ranging from six to 12 months) and for receiving a decision after trial or summary judgment (ranging from two months to four months).

Land Court decisions aren’t widely available, but recent rulings can be found here.

If you have a complicated real estate dispute, your attorney should always seriously consider bringing the claim in the Land Court where the judge will understand the issues and keep tight control over the case.

___________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Land Court Attorney who has litigated numerous cases in the Massachusetts Land Court. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 5 comments }

Doomsday For Loan Officers? New Federal Mortgage Compensation Rules Go Into Effect Today

by Rich Vetstein on April 6, 2011

in Mortgages

New Rules May Result In Higher Rates & Costs

Late yesterday, a federal appeals court cleared the way for the immediate implementation of controversial new Federal Reserve loan officer compensation rules. The new rules were intended to prevent the practice of “steering” where a loan officer improperly steered the consumer into higher interest rate loans which provided more commissions.

The new loan officer compensation rules have received much criticism by the lending community as an improper and even anti-American interference with their right to earn a living. I’m not going to bore you with the details of the rules, as they are fairly complicated. I suggest reading about them in David Gaffin’s scathing post “New Fed LO Compensation Rules Will Change The Lending Landscape & Possibly Capitalism! In summary, loan officers must be compensated based on the loan amount, not on other factors of the loan. Our readers, however, care primarily how it will affect them.

Effect On The Massachusetts Borrower

The national consensus and the resulting impact on the Massachusetts mortgage consumer will most likely result in an slight increase in rates and borrowing costs over the short term. Hopefully this will even out over time as lenders get used to pricing their loan products under the new rules. Some lenders with whom we work have already implemented the new pricing changes. It will be interesting to see what loan officers are quoting this morning when rates come out.

Mortgage professionals, what are your feelings about the new rules? Please comment below.

{ 3 comments }

Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement: How About Confusion In Lending?

by Rich Vetstein on March 28, 2011

in Closings, Disclosures, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Truth in Lending

Annual Percentage Rate (APR), Amount Financed, Finance Charge, and Total Payments…the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement is one of the most challenging disclosure forms to explain to borrowers at a Massachusetts real estate closing. I like to call it the “Confusion In Lending” Statement because the form is what happens when the government attempts to recalculate your interest rate and closing costs in a way most human beings would not even consider.

To explain the Truth In Lending Disclosure, we’ll use a dummy form for a $500,000 purchase transaction with a $400,000 loan (20% down payment), a 30 year fixed rate loan at 5.00% at a cost of 1 point.

Annual Percentage Rate

The confusion begins. The Annual Percentage Rate, or APR, as you can see is not 5.00%, which is the contract interest rate for the loan. Why? Because the APR does not use the loan amount for its calculations but rather the “Amount Financed.”

Amount Financed

And the confusion continues. The Amount Financed is not the $400,000 loan amount, but is about $6,600 less than the loan amount. That is because the Amount Financed equals the loan amount ($400,000) less prepaid loan and closing fees and payments. Fees included in the amount financed are: points, lender fees such as underwriting, process, tax service, mortgage insurance, escrow company fees, prepaid interest to end of closing month, and Homeowners Association fees. All of these fees are added up and subtracted from the loan amount to reach the Amount Financed figure. Note that depending on when the loan closes in the month, and fees from third parties such as escrow companies the Amount Financed will vary and therefore so will APR.

How The APR Is Calculated

Now that we have the Amount Financed, we can calculate the APR. For a 30 year fixed loan such as this, the true loan amount is amortized for the loan period using the interest rate. In our example $400,000 amortized for 30 years at 5.00% has a payment of $2,147.29 per month paying principal and interest.

To calculate the APR, we use the same payment –$2147.29 every month for 30 years– to pay off an Amount Financed of $393,372.22 (loan amount less costs) to reach an APR of 5.141%. So the APR is higher than the interest rate because the Amount Financed is lower than the loan amount for the same monthly payment and term.

ARMs–Adjustable Rate Mortgages

If you are taking out an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), you may as well just throw the Truth in Lending Disclosure out the window. The TIL is allowed to be based on the introductory interest rate through the entire life of the loan. Your adjustable rate mortgage, however, will reset its interest rate after 3, 5, 7, or 10 years depending on the type of product. There’s no way to predict where interest rates will be in the future, so the Truth in Lending Disclosure is inherently inaccurate for ARMs.

Explaining the Truth in Lending Disclosure is one of the many functions of a Massachusetts real estate closing attorney. In other states which aren’t required to use closing attorneys, they will not explain these complicated forms to you.

___________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Closing Attorney. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 5 comments }

Massachusetts Purchase & Sale Agreement Contingencies In A Changed Market

by Rich Vetstein on March 25, 2011

in Appraisals, Closings, Condominium Law, Fannie Mae, FHA, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Purchase and Sale Agreements

The “Standard Form”

In Massachusetts, buyers and sellers typically use the standard form purchase and sale agreement created by the Greater Boston Board of Real Estate. This form has been around since the late 1970’s and last updated in 1999–which might as well be 100 years ago in real estate life. Along with the standard form, attorneys for sellers and buyers customarily add specialized Riders to the agreement which modify the standard form and add contingencies particular to the deal.

A Vastly Changed Landscape

The legal and mortgage financing landscape has changed so much in the last few years, with Fannie Mae and regulatory agencies issuing a new policy what seems like every other week, and short sale and REO transactions becoming much more prevalent. With the recovering market and new appraisal guidelines, some homes are not appraising out. Moreover, lenders have tightened underwriting requirements considerably. As a result, borrowers have more difficulty qualifying for mortgage loans, it takes longer to get a loan commitment, and there are often delays in getting the loan “cleared to close.” All these changes in the real estate landscape require re-thinking of the standard form purchase and sale agreement and the associated riders.

As experienced Massachusetts real estate attorneys, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to know that we are on top of the latest changes in the Massachusetts and national real estate landscape, and have adapted our legal forms accordingly. I’ll go through 3 recent changes that I’ve adopted in my practice.

Low Appraisal Contingency

These days, appraisals are administered is a completely different fashion. New rules – the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) – hold appraisers to higher standards and sharply limit communication between appraisers and lenders. Mortgage professionals can no longer select their “hand-picked” appraiser now; there is basically a random lottery system to select the appraiser. The downside of this lottery is that the appraiser may not be very familiar with the town or neighborhood being appraised. So the appraisal may fall short of the agreed-upon selling price.

I always insist on this provision to protect a buyer against the risk of the property not appraising out.

Appraisal– The buyer’s obligations, hereunder, are contingent upon the BUYER’s lender obtaining an appraisal of the property in an amount at least equal to the purchase price of the premises.

What happens if the property doesn’t appraise for asking price? Sometimes you can ask for a second appraisal or bring different comparable sales to the appraiser’s attention and he can revise the appraisal. Sometimes, the parties must re-negotiate the purchase price. Talk to your lender and Realtor about the options. This provision, however, gives the buyer an “out” if a low appraisal cannot be overcome.

Condominium Fannie Mae Compliance

Tougher Fannie Mae and FHA condominium rules have made condo financing much more challenging. I add this clause to deal with this situation:

The Condominium, the Unit, and the Condominium Documents (including but not limited to the Master Deed and By-Laws/Trust) shall conform to the requirements of Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA” or “Freddie Mac”), Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) or other secondary mortgage market investor, and shall otherwise be acceptable to BUYER’s mortgage lender.

Rate Lock Expirations

Delays happen. There may be a title problem which the seller needs a few days or weeks to correct. But what if your rate lock will expire and you are facing a higher interest rate loan? This provision protects the buyer in this situation:

MODIFICATION TO PARAGRAPH 10: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, if SELLER extends this Agreement to perfect title or make the Premises conform as provided in Paragraph 10, and if BUYER’S mortgage commitment or rate lock would expire prior to the expiration of said extension, then such extension shall continue, at BUYER’S option, only until the date of expiration of BUYER’S mortgage commitment or rate lock.

There are many other contingencies and new provisions that I use, but I cannot give them all away!

___________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Attorney. For further information you can contact him at [email protected].

{ 0 comments }

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

by Rich Vetstein on February 15, 2011

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

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

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

What Is MERS?

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

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

The Ruling: MERS Cannot Legally Transfer & Assign Mortgages

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

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

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

Impact of the Decision

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

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

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

More Coverage

Wall Street Journal

Bloomberg News

{ 5 comments }

Are The Lowest Mortgage Rates In History Now History?

by Rich Vetstein on February 12, 2011

in Fannie Mae, FHA, HUD, Mortgages, USDA loans

A guest post by David Gaffin, Senior Mortgage Lender, from Greenpark Mortgage.

David Gaffin, Greenpark Mortgage

Since Nov. 3rd when the Federal Reserve Bank released details of QEII (Quantitative Easing II), we have seen a very rapid rise in mortgage rates. On a national basis, the Freddie Mac 30 year fixed rate has moved from 4.20% to 5.05% this week. The 10 year Treasury has risen above 3.70% and Inflation seems to be the word of this month.

Last year at this time the 10 year was at 3.73% and it hit 4.00% on April 5th. It then started a fairly rapid descent all spring and summer to its low of 2.38% on October 8th. There were several economic events that brought this about, but the question in every mortgage company’s and consumer’s mind is “Will history repeat itself this year”?

Wishful thinkers will say YES. Many think the stock market is overbought. The Mid-East and Egypt situation is still very unstable. Inflation remains low according to the FED. Unemployment is stubbornly high and the housing market is continues to be very sluggish.  Until these issues are resolved, rates cannot rise too far or consumer demand will fall and economic growth will not be sustained.

HOWEVER, there are a few wrinkles that have nothing to do with Macroeconomics that will be in play in the coming months and years.

Changes In Loan Officer Compensation

As part of the Dodd-Frank Bill, loan officers’ compensation is about to undergo a dramatic change. Loan officers will no longer be paid based on certain loan characteristics such as interest rate. The intention is to have consumers with like profiles receive the same interest rate when quoted from one loan officer to another within the same company. One the surface this makes sense. In practice, the policy is very unfriendly to the consumer, limits consumer choice, and is uncompetitive for the marketplace. Loan officers already have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients to put them in the best loan for them, while compensation to the loan officer is not a major factor. This is a higher standard than the financial planning or brokerage environment which must merely come up with a suitable product, not the best product for their clients.

The anticipated effect of this change, coupled with the reduced volume of loan transactions due to rising rates, will further increase the profit pressures on lending institutions, thereby requiring them to make their loans more profitable. This may be done through reduction of expenses and overhead (read layoffs) or higher rates to the consumer, and will eventually lead to fewer choices to the consumer as companies go out of business. The large lending institutions will then be free to control the market even more so.

Fannie/Freddie (GSE) Reform

A bigger factor is the Fannie/Freddie GSE reform now being detailed by the Treasury. This plan, which may take affect over several years, will reduce/eliminate the government’s backing of the mortgage market, except perhaps through FHA, VA and USDA loans. When the government moves to a private secondary market, those investors are going to want a greater return on their investments and rates will almost certainly rise and may do so dramatically. Less than 10 years ago 7.25% was considered a great rate!

Current programs such as a 30 year fixed rate may vanish in favor of the adjustable rate mortgages which move with the interest rate market and would be more profitable for investors. Additionally, for those programs that are somewhat or fully guaranteed by the government, I would expect the fees associated with these programs to rise substantially.

The GSE reform options include reducing the Agency Jumbo Limit to $625,000, down from $729,000 in the highest cost areas. In Massachusetts those high cost areas are Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Islands off Cape Cod. The highest max loan amount in other counties is $523,750. Will this reduction of loan size have a big impact? I don’t think so. Current rates may be .250% to .500% higher with portfolio lenders that offer loans over these limits, but these jumbos have come way down in rate compared to the depths of the financial crisis. Most of the risk is relieved through very strict underwriting guidelines.

I have Portfolio lenders offering under 4% on ARM rates on loans to $1MM at 5 year interest only for the right borrower! While ARMs may not be the right product for everyone, they are for certain individuals and these folks are saving tremendous sums compared to where rates were just a couple of years ago.

A big concern for for future homeowners with GSE reform will be the minimum down payment requirements. There is talk that borrower’s may be required to put down 10 or 20% to qualify. Some major lenders have suggested 30%. Yeah, that’ll work…not. If that becomes the requirement you can kiss home ownership goodbye for the next generation or so, and rents will rise very rapidly.

I certainly recognize the need for GSE reform. Taxpayers have been getting killed by the losses from the mortgage giants, and the bleeding will not stop anytime soon. The plan as outlined by the Obama administration will gradually make changes to the GSEs over 5-7 years. But hopefully the market will understand what will be happening well in advance of the changes occuring.

Interest Rate Predictions For 2011 and Beyond

So what do I think? I think (unfortunately) rates will:

  • increase to 5.875%-6.125% for a 30 year fixed rate by the end of 2011;
  • increase to 6.50% by end of 2012; and
  • level out at closer to 7% by 2013.

By that time hopefully there will be a more clear path to GSE reform.

I want low rates. It’s good for my business, helps pay for my mortgage, and keeps the house heated.

All of this rate speculation, however, could be meaningless if Congress decides to finally act on the deficit. If they do, then rates could stay low for a very long period. One thing is for sure, my 3 kids are going to see a very different economic and housing landscape when they are ready to buy a home.

To see the  the full report on Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market, click here .

I welcome comments and your point of view.  I also welcome subscribers to my blog, The Massachusetts Mortgage Blog. Also check out my new Facebook page, Mortgagemania. I can be reached via email by clicking here.

{ 5 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →