The duty of all Americans to repay their mortgage debt as a moral imperative is an illusion created by lenders (and the collusive federal government) to shame homeowners into repayment. Notwithstanding this so-called moral duty, homeowners enjoy the same rights as governments and corporations to default on their debts when fundamentals tell them it is wise to do so.

It seems a business that chooses to declare bankruptcy at the opportune moment to preserve cash flow is a wisely managed entity in the eyes of financial analysts everywhere, but a homeowner who does the same is labeled a cheat. The ability to strategically default with impunity is unique to businesses since the concept of morality in finance varies depending on whether it’s businesses or individuals involved.

The double standard is nutty.

Political rhetoric aside, the decision to strategically default is not a moral decision. Every trust deed contains a contract provision requiring the lender to take the home on any default. Homeowners are not committing a crime (or even a theological no-no) by exercising their right to default, but merely making a wise financial decision in light of current economic conditions. Declaring bankruptcy is very commonly used in the business world as a sort of restart button; a chance to pare down debt before it gets out of hand. American Airlines recently declared bankruptcy, but not as a last ditch effort to salvage the company. They made a tactical decision to cut their losses, shed some debt, get competitive standing and preserve their earnings — and investors rewarded them for it.

Underwater homeowners can do the same, but most don’t because of the perceived social and seemingly moral consequences. Though businesses are commended for a strategic bankruptcy to avoid going under, homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth are warned not to employ the same wisdom for fear of public ridicule and a scarlet letter from their lender.

What’s ironic is organizations (and Banks) that criticize the strategic default have chosen to strategically shed their black-hole assets themselves.

(Excerpts taken from: first tuesday.)

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has admitted to grossly overstating its numbers of reported home sales over the first years of this Lesser Depression. After the trusted real estate data firm CoreLogic questioned the accuracy of NAR’s numbers, the real estate trade union took a second look and revised its reported home sales data down by nearly 3.5 million homes.

Original NAR reports claimed 24.8 million homes were sold nationwide from January 2007 to October 2011. Revised data shows this figure to be off by 14% from readily available recorded data, with a total of only 21.3 million homes sold nationwide over the course of the Great Recession

(From: first tuesday)

Just last week, in Harbour Vista, LLC v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., 2011 WL 6318525 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2011), the California Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs may not obtain default judgments in quiet title actions. But … (And the “But” is fascinating.)

Harbour owned a ground lease under a condo complex. Julie Nugent purchased a condo and paid her mortgage to Fieldstone Mortgage Company. She also subleased from and paid rent to Harbour. Both the mortgage and the sub-lease were secured by the condo. Nugent eventually defaulted on both her rent and mortgage. After HSBC purchased the condo from Fieldstone at a foreclosure sale, Harbour filed a complaint to quiet title. HSBC failed to respond to the complaint and Harbour obtained a default judgment. HSBC then moved to set aside the default judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. HSBC appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment based on the language of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 764.010, which expressly provides that the “court shall not enter judgment by default.” According to the Court, this language “is unequivocal,” and the “prohibition against default judgments in quiet title actions appears absolute.” The statute does not, however, prevent a quiet title plaintiff from taking a default.

Instead of a default judgment, after taking a default, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the parties (including the defaulted defendant) are entitled to present evidence regarding their conflicting claims to the property. Thus, even though HSBC had not answered the complaint and was in default, the trial court should have allowed HSBC to present evidence about its claim to the condo. Once a court holds a properly noticed evidentiary hearing, it may render a regular judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law regardless of whether the defaulted defendant appears.

Here is the fascinating part …

Though a defaulted defendant has a right to appear at the evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff has no obligation to provide notice to the defaulted defendant of this hearing. Nor does the plaintiff have any obligation “to serve documents or give notice of any future court dates” to the defaulted defendant.

If the defaulted defendant nevertheless learns of the evidentiary hearing and appears, it may be heard.

If it does not appear, the Court will proceed and render judgment without the participation of the defaulted defendant. Following the evidentiary hearing, the Court should issue a judgment resolving all issues as to title.

Imagine the HOA’s joy:  It gets a default, then notices the prove-up hearing without the need to even give notice to the other side.  Talk about form over substance.

Other causes of action and claims for relief will not be addressed at this evidentiary hearing and are not affected by this rule. If a defendant defaults as to other claims, normal procedures for obtaining entry of default and default judgment apply.

So did the lenders win?  Or not?  I’d say not.

Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , (N.D.Cal.)
January 11, 2012

A borrower stated a claim against a lender for violations of TILA disclosure requirements by alleging that the lender had failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that payment schedules for an option adjustable rate mortgage (Option ARM) on the borrower’s residence were not based on the actual interest rate, and that negative amortization would occur if the borrower followed the payment schedule provided. The court found that the borrower’s state law claims for aiding and abetting fraud, fraud through misrepresentation in an oral contract, and breach of contract were not preempted by Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA), but that HOLA preempted his claim for fraudulent omissions.


New laws that have come into effect include such things as the DRE’s new mandate for “consumer protection” (read: get the brokers) and notice to buyers regarding water conserving plumbing fixtures (has the crap really hit the fan yet?).

More to follow in the next few days.