Vickie Elmer, of the New York Times recently reported that “About a third of the 65-and-older households that owned a home in 2009 had a mortgage, according to the Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey, which also put homeownership in this age group close to 81 percent during the second quarter of this year.”

“And lenders … expect to see a debt-to-income ratio of no more than 40 or 45 percent…”

What does that do to the value of housing that a “senior” can afford?

If retirement income is $2,000 per month, and 45% of that can be sued for “debt” then housing debt should be capped at about 31%. 31% of $2,000 is $620, and if the interest rate is 5% over a 30 year amortized loan, that’s $115,000 (before taxes and insurance are factored in.

Better go buy that REO house in the California central valley now.

The L.A. Times recently reported that the Fed is now looking to find ways to dispose of the 248,000 homes it owns (through bank REOs) by either selling them in bulk to investors who will be required to rent them, or to sell them on rent-to-own basis.

“One idea could be to create pools of foreclosed properties that would be sold in bulk to private investors, who would then rent them out, helping reduce taxpayer losses on the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie. Another idea could be for investors to buy homes and then rent them on a rent-to-own basis.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/foreclosure-obama-housing-market-rent-fannie-mae-freddie-mac.html

Who is kidding whom here? “Rent-to-Own”? What are we – a mattress store?

The Fed will give a new buyer a break by allowing them to rent, then buy at a price (presumably) fixed at the time they enter into this agreement (thus allowing the buyer to get some upside?) Or, is the program designed to let the Renter buy it at market value several years from now, if they qualify? (That way, the Fed gets the upside, and the rental value. It beats having an empty house…)

Why not just take the mark-down to market value today, and reform the existing loan – and allow the current owner to keep it?

Either way, there is going to be a loss.

Once again, I can say the Banks continue to rob homeowners blind with all the blather about “negative impact” of walking away.

Here is yet another article from first tuesday…

“Fair Issac Company (FICO) researchers have developed new analytics to predict a borrower’s likelihood of walking away from a mortgage – a strategic default – whether or not he is delinquent on his payments. The rise in strategic defaults over the past year is of concern to mortgage lenders. Thus, FICO consulted with them (not underwater homeowners) to develop the analytics with the purpose of preventing strategic defaults and their costly impact on lenders, investors, homeowners and the housing market.

35% of mortgage defaults in September 2010 were strategic, an increase from the 26% more than a year earlier in March 2009 according to a University of Chicago Booth School of Business study. 22.5% of residential mortgage defaults nationwide were strategic in the third quarter of 2010. This number increased to 23.1% in the fourth quarter of the same year.

In negative-equity-laden California, strategic defaults are also widespread (more so than the nation as a whole since California is a nonrecourse state and lenders cannot viably threaten to sue for their losses). There were 45,380 strategic defaults in 2009 – 80 times the number in 2005.

FICO researchers found borrowers who walked away from their mortgages had common traits including:

higher FICO scores;
better credit management (understood financial statements);
less retail balance (did not need credit to buy);
shorter length of residence on the property and thus greater likelihood of a negative equity; and more open credit in the past six months with which to purchase items.

The study concluded the degree of difference in the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio between the current market price for a home and the mortgage owed on the home (home price depreciation) is not as strong of an indicator for predicting a homeowner’s ability or willingness to strategically default. However, the study did conclude a borrower with a stronger history of good money management and a higher credit score tended to strategically default at a higher rate than other borrowers.

FICO and mortgage servicers are alarmed of the increasing frequency of strategic defaulters and warn homeowners of the consequences of walking away from their mortgage payments. Not only will homeowners suffer a 150+ point hit to their credit scores, but they may also face higher rates, tighter terms for other types of credit and a bump in insurance premiums. FICO goes on to implicitly threaten the homeowner who reverts to renting after walking away by saying landlords will be more unwilling to accept them as a tenant when they see a strategic default on the tenant’s credit record.

This is a fabrication of the worst type. FICO and the lenders they consulted with (who incidentally are the ones who pay FICO for the use of their algorithms) have an economic interest in keeping California’s population of negative equity homeowners imprisoned in their underwater homes. The truth is, any landlord fully understands that a strategic defaulter is going to make a very fine, long-term tenant if they have a job and otherwise pay their bills – and most all do since they made the sound decision to strategically default.

Walking away is for smart people, and lenders know it.

Several studies over the past years have already observed strategic defaulters tend to hail from a more financially savvy crop of people. The recent FICO study repeats this conclusion of which many of us are familiar.

What it also advertises — to the endorsement of lenders — are the detrimental effects of walking away from a mortgage. Agents and brokers must construct the bigger picture, especially in California where underwater homeowners collectively hold over 2,000,000 negative equity mortgages.

California negative equity homeowners have the short end of the stick with black-hole assets on their hands, so the question they should be answering is not whether a strategic default would be a in the best interest of their lenders. Rather, they should be considering whether a strategic default would be a prudent choice for their personal financial situation.

It’s true, homeowners will see a hit to their credit scores from a strategic default — and of course FICO will highlight this since the media often overstates this figure — but homeowners must not be inveigled into staying in negative equity properties by the vague economic threat of a lower FICO score. It’s not about the FICO score alone, but the costs versus benefits analysis of the homeowner’s individual situation.

Either a homeowner can continue to siphon his money into a dead-end loan, or he can save that money and invest it into a much more lively investment — improving his family’s standard of living.

Paying lenders the full amount on an underwater home is not what is going to fuel the recovery of a family or the California economy — what we need is to put cash in the hands of negative equity Californians.

A strategic default when the LTV is above 125% is not a dishonest financial bailout – it is prudent business decision. It may temporarily hurt the pride and credit scores of California homeowners, but these things are soon remedied.

Paying lenders the full amount on an underwater home is not what is going to fuel the recovery of a family or the California economy — what we need is to put cash in the hands of negative equity Californians. If they aren’t going to get any cramdowns in bankruptcy courts, they need to exercise their legal right to strategically default — that “put option” in every trust deed. Besides, it’s what all the smart people are doing anyway, right?

Copyright © 2011 by first tuesday Realty Publications, Inc. Readers are encouraged to reprint or distribute this information with credit given to the first tuesday Journal Online — P.O. Box 20069, Riverside, CA 92516.”

As you know, I have been preaching that “Strategic Defaults” are – often – a good thing for a borrower.

first tuesday agrees.
“If mortgage lenders will not lend homeowners a hand, then homeowners can force lenders’ hands by exercising their right to default, made imperative by a loan-to-value ratio (LTV) above 125%. Waiting for a modification that isn’t available just isn’t the best bet for a homeowner or for California’s economy. And don’t listen to the preaching on the effect on how a strategic default is better or worse for Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) credit scores – a short sale delivers the same amount of adverse credit scoring as does a foreclosure. ”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

“Stewardesses” is the longest word typed with only the left hand .. And “lollipop” is the longest word typed with your right hand.

TYPEWRITER is the longest word that can be made using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.

The sentence: “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” uses every letter of the alphabet.

“Dreamt” is the only English word that ends in the letters “mt”. ?

There are only four words in the English language which end in “dous”: tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.

There are two words in the English language that have all five vowels in order: “abstemious” and “facetious.”

What does that have to do with real estate? Not a darn thing.
But I thought it was kinda interesting.

Last year the Legislature passed Senate Bill 931 adding Section 580e to the California Code of Civil Procedure.  This new Section established that the beneficiary on a loan secured by a first deed of trust on 1 to 4 unit residential property could not pursue a deficiency judgment after a short sale which they had approved.  The law applies equally to purchase money, hard money and refinance loans.

 This year the Legislature passed Senate Bill 458 which amended Section 580e by making it applicable to junior liens as well.  It also applied additional limitations to the loans subject to the section. In addition to not being able to get a deficiency judgment it provides at Section (a)(1) that after a short sale no deficiency shall be owed or collected and no deficiency judgment shall be requested or rendered provided the short sale closed escrow and the lender was paid the amount they agreed to accept.

 Although the law does not specifically say so it is likely the courts will interpret that section to mean that it applies to a short sale closing either before or after July 15, 2011, the effective date of the new section.  That analysis is based on the provision that the short money cannot be collected and no deficiency can be requested.  It also will bar lenders from turning these loans over to a collection company which some lenders were doing even though the earlier section barred a deficiency judgment.

 The amended law provides at Section (b) that the holder of a note shall not require the seller to pay any additional compensation, aside from the proceeds of the sale, in exchange for their consent to the short sale.

 Some people have taken the position that, since only the seller is prohibited from providing additional compensation, the 2^nd lender can request the buyer or real estate brokers to pay them additional money above that the 1^st has agreed they can receive from the sale. 

 That might be true if only this code section applied.  But if the 1^st lender has based their approval on their consent to the 2^nd only receiving a specified amount then any attempt to pay the 2^nd more without the consent of the 1^st would likely be considered loan fraud.  If the 1^st finds there is more money available in the transaction they will rightly feel it should go to them rather than to the 2^nd.  That is the purpose of being in 1^st position.

Section 580e (c) provides that if the borrower commits loan fraud the limitations of the section would not apply.  The lender would then be able to pursue the entire unpaid balance. If you are the broker in a transaction where the 2^nd lender requests the broker or buyer to pay them some additional money either within or outside escrow you need to make sure that either the 1^st lender specifically approves the additional money being paid to the 2^nd or you run away from that transaction as quickly as possible.  Participating in a fraudulent transaction can expose you to monetary liability to the lender, revocation of your license by DRE and criminal prosecution.

The real question remaining to be answered is whether this new law will be a great protection of the seller from liability after a short sale or whether it will lead to lenders denying short sales in favor of pursuing foreclosure where a deficiency by a junior lien holder may be possible.

If you have any questions on this article or any other aspect of real estate law please contact the Hanson Law Firm at 916 447-9181 or log on to our website at www.HansonLawFirm.com.

Calling a Bank about a loan is THE most frustrating experience … even more so than sending in a loan mod request package — for the 15th time.

From a legal perspective, it gets worse, especially when “Joy” or “Nancy” tells you one thing (like, “You’re approved for our internal Loan Modification Program…”) but refuses to put it in writing. Or the letter you get says something different than the Bank’s representative said on the phone.

What do you do to protect yourself?

Try this:

When someone from the Bank calls, tell them: “I am recording this call for LEGAL purposes. Please state your full name and your birthdate – for identification purposes.”

How much you wanna bet the call will end – right there?

It will. And that’s OK.

If the Bank representative won’t agree to be recorded – END THE CALL. Nothing that is said in it will will matter anyway. The Bank will change its position. And you won’t be able to prove a thing. (And having the Bank’s representative refuse to be recorded, can work to your advantage later in court…)

Oh, and when Joy or Nancy balks, remind her that the Bank is recording the call already. For “training purposes.”

In a recent California case (as reported by firsttuesday) “an owner of property defaulted on a mortgage encumbering the property, causing the lender to record a notice of default (NOD). Prior to the trustee’s sale, the owner’s loan broker arranging financing to pay off the delinquent mortgage requested the lender postpone the trustee’s sale, which the lender did. The lender’s representative also orally promised to further postpone the sale on a further request from the loan broker. Before the trustee’s sale, the loan broker called the lender’s representative and left messages requesting a further postponement of the trustee’s sale. The lender’s representative did not respond. The trustee’s sale was not postponed and the property was sold. Unaware of the foreclosure sale, the broker and owner completed the financing and forwarded the payoff funds to the lender. The lender refused receipt of the payoff funds. The owner suffered money losses due to the loss of his property by the lender’s foreclosure and the cost of obtaining the payoff funds. The owner made a demand on the lender for the losses, claiming the lender was liable since the owner relied on the lender’s oral promise to postpone the trustee’s sale on request. The lender denied liability for the owner’s losses, claiming the oral promise to postpone the trustee’s sale was not enforceable since the lender received no consideration for the promise. A California court of appeals held an owner of property is entitled to money losses from a lender who orally promises to postpone the trustee’s sale of the owner’s property when the owner relies on the promise to his detriment since the owner’s detrimental reliance on the lender’s promise serves as a substitute for the consideration necessary to enforce an oral promise. [Garcia v. World Savings (2010) 183 CA4th 1031]”

What does all this mean?

It means that – in some very limited circumstances – a borrower CAN compell the Bank to honor an ORAL agreement NOT to foreclose. It is a very difficult promise to enforce, and most judges (especially one particular one in Contra Costa County) simply don’t give a damn; they feel overloaded with “just another mortgage case.”

If you think you have a situation where a foreclosure should not have happened, give us a call…

In July, the California legislature passed SB 458, which revised Ca Code Civ Procedure 580e to prevent “short sale” deficiencies on second position loans.

So, here’s the rub. No one knows for certain if it is retroactive.

If you closed a deal in 2010, and the Bank has not yet sued for a deficiency on that second loan, can it do so now? What if it HAS filed suit, can you get out of the lawsuit now based on CCP 580e?

There are arguments – pro and con.

HLF can represent borrowers who have been subjected to these kinds of claims – and brokers/agents who are being brought in for indemnity cross complaints because a borrower is being sued by a Bank for a deficiency.

The latest and greatest news is that FHA will allow borrowers who are unemployed up to one year of deferred mortgage payment relief (read: live for free) while they get back on their feet.

This represents about 4% of the troubled California mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans are NOT included in this program. Neither are portfolio residential loans held by banks (like all those pesky seconds out there…).

So, for the very few that the “new” program will help (the unemployed, FHA insured, one loan only borrower), congratulations!

For the rest of us: Isn’t it grand how the Government is here to help?

Next.