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.

SB 458 – effective July 11, states no liability will inure to sellers of short sale 1-4 unit properties in California with respect to second position loans. (Recall that first position loans sold short lost recourse liability becasue of SB 931 in 2010).

Good news? Or bad?

Some say it will actually hurt sales in California, becasue banks won’t have any incentive to deal and will just foreclose. Maybe.

I’d bet neither law stays on the books very long. Huh? Why not?

The US and State Constitutions have Ex Post Facto laws. Fancy words that mean, in essence, “Thou shalt not pass a law that interferes with a preexisting contractual relationship.”

Isn’t that just what these laws did? Change the preexisting contractual relationship between a bank and a borrower?

With hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars at risk, don’t you think the banks will challenge the laws? I would.

We’ll all find out in about three years. That’s how long it takes for a trial, and then an appeal. (Longer if it goes to either of the Supreme Courts – state or federal.)

Sellers (and listing brokers?) of residential real estate seem stuck in the ‘olden days’ of value. They are stuck with the old price. It’s the “sticky price” problem. They seem to ignore a reality: Value is based on CASH PRICING.

Yup. Those REO speculator investor buyers are setting the new market value of EVERYTHING.

And why not?

Isn’t “value” what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller – absent outside influences? And isn’t financing an outside influence? We only need to look at what the ability to get easy money (i.e. stated income loans with teaser initial rates and optional payment plans) did to values in the last 10 years. Now that governmental influence in lending money has reversed itself – making it feel nearly impossible to get a loan – even for a well qualified, fully documented loan applicant – prices are still ‘in the gutter.’ How come?

Because that’s where they belong.

Take a look at any chart that goes back, say 30 years. You can see the line of price increase is a relatively shallow one. If you take out the last 10 – 15 years, the place where today’s prices hits is just about in line with the historical norm. This ‘market adjustment’ has ben huge – no doubt about it. But is adjusted to where it ought to have been in the first place – absent government interference.

So, cash is king. It always has been. And a cash price value is THE value. That a borrower might be able to borrow dollars to buy at the cash price just gives that borrower leverage. What a nice thing. If you can get it.

The New York Times recently reported that “high value” homes are going to lose government support in the secondary mortgage market – and that that loss will likely further deteriorate the real estate recovery. It was right.

“By summer’s end,” it reported “buyers and sellers in some of the country’s most upscale housing markets are slated to lose their biggest benefactor of the economic downturn: the deep pockets of the federal government. In [Monterrey, CA, a] seaside community of pricey homes, the dread of yet another housing shock is already spreading.

‘We’re looking at more price drops, more foreclosures,’ said Rick Del Pozzo, a loan broker. ‘This snowball that’s been rolling downhill is going to pick up some speed.’

For the past three years, federal agencies have backed new mortgages as large as $729,750 in desirable neighborhoods in high-cost states like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Without the government covering the risk of default, many lenders would have refused to make the loans. With the economy in free fall, Congress broadened its traditionally generous support of housing to an unprecedented degree.

But Democrats and Republicans agree that the taxpayer should no longer be responsible for homes valued well above the national average and are about to turn a top slice of the housing market into a testing ground for whether the private mortgage market can once again go it alone. Michael Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities.

‘There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it, it’s always going to be an arbitrary line,’ said Barr, who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School. ‘But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000.’

As the housing market braces for the trouble, homeowners everywhere have been reduced to hoping things will some day stop getting worse. In some areas, foreclosures are the only thing selling. New-home construction is nearly nonexistent. And CoreLogic, a data company, said Tuesday that house prices fell 7.5 percent over the past year. Each month, the number of faltering cities rises.

Federal agencies last year backed nine out of 10 new mortgages nationwide, and losses from soured loans are still mounting. Fannie Mae, which buys mortgages from lenders and packages them for investors, said last week that it needed an additional $6.2 billion in aid, bringing the cost of its rescue to nearly $100 billion.

Getting the government out of the mortgage business, however, is proving much more difficult than doling out new benefits. As regulators prepare to drop the level at which they will guarantee loans — here in Monterey County, the level will drop by a third, to $483,000 — buyers and sellers are wondering why they should be punished simply for living in an expensive region. Sellers worry that the pool of potential buyers will shrink. ‘I’m glad to see they’re trying to rein in Fannie Mae, but I think I’m being disproportionately penalized,’ said Rayn Random, who is trying to sell her house in the hills for $849,000 so she can move to Florida.

The National Association of Realtors is making an extension of the loan guarantees a top lobbying priority.

‘Reducing the limits will put more downward pressure on prices,’ said president Ron Phipps. ‘I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense.’ But he said that in contrast to last year, when a one-year extension of the higher limits sailed through Congress, ‘there’s more resistance.’
Federal regulators acknowledge that mortgages will get more expensive in upscale neighborhoods but say the effect of the smaller guarantees on the overall housing market will be muted.”

Really? No “entitlement” to live in an expensive house? Let Wall Street come up with a private secondary market for expensive (i.e. anything over $500,000?) homes? Who are they kidding? Especially in CA, CT, NT, VT.

This “sock it to the ‘rich’” business is a bunch of baloney.

Big words – pure Bullshit.

Here’s what one lawyer is peddeling in Southern Califirnia.

“Here is some info that we send out to brokers. Our fundamental principal under which we work is the “educated supposition” that a preponderance of real estate loans having been originated by the banking industry in the last several years were, at least in part, predatory in nature and fraught with myriad blatant illegalities, errors and omissions in their construction and execution. We find as well that many of the documents which purport to secure these alleged loans with ownership in your real estate, have been lost or destroyed in favor of creating the more convenient and legally protective electronic mortgage recording system (MERS): thereby rending certain of the documents largely unavailable and unenforceable under the law. Our primary contention is that a copy of a negotiable instrument is not a valid instrument. Irrespective of the production of such items as “Certified Copies” or “Affidavits of Lost Document”, a certified copy of a dollar-bill will obviously not buy you a dollar’s worth of anything: as well, an affidavit saying your dog ate your dollar-bill won’t buy anything either.
During the examination (forensic auditing) phase of your transaction, we generally discover that your “lender” never made you a “loan.” We find instead that your signature and averred obligation to pay was in fact sold for a large profit well before your “loan” documents were presented to you. We find that in fact no money was ever expended by your “lender” on your behalf: thereby inferring that your negotiable and highly valued signature did in effect retire your so-called mortgage obligation well before your payment-stream was established.

Since its inception, your alleged loan has most likely been sold and re-sold several times before it was purchase by a Wall Street stock brokerage and fractionalized to securitize international stock market purchases (mostly by foreign investors, who, at the time, had an exaggerated faith in the US tock and real estate market, but who long-since have accepted their losses). For the most part, these unfortunate folks have moved on and have no expectation of recompense of any kind. Ergo, one might ask: “So where does all the money go when I am evicted for non-payment and my bank sells the property for top dollar?” The answer lies with each party in the line succession: i.e., those who purchased, re-sold and fractionated your loan by including it in a multi-million (or billion) dollar bundle of other mortgages. Each party in the queue have long since been paid far more from their acquisition of your loan than they paid for it, and in effect will have lost virtually nothing as a result of a homeowner’s inability to pay.”

Ya just gotta wonder where teh State Bar is in shutting these types down. They are as bad as the banks that started this in the first place.

RISMEDIA reported today (April 15, 2011) that a new bill to improve the process for approving short sales might soon bring relief to distressed homeowners who are unable to keep their homes and hope to avoid foreclosure. The bill, recently introduced in the U.S. House and strongly supported by the National Association of REALTORS®, would impose a deadline of 45 days on lenders to respond to short sale requests.

The legislation, the “Prompt Decision for Qualification for Short Sale Act of 2011,” was offered in Congress by U.S. Reps. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.).

“The current short sale process can be time-consuming and inefficient, and many would-be buyers end up walking away from a sale that could have saved a homeowner from foreclosure,” said NAR President Ron Phipps, broker-president of Phipps Realty in Warwick, R.I.

“REALTORS® and consumers continue to raise issues about delays in the short sale process, because lenders are unable to decide whether to approve a short sale. After many months of delays, and with no response from lenders, potential buyers are losing patience and cancelling their contracts, often resulting in the property entering foreclosure. A short sale minimizes the negative impact on sellers and generally costs the lender less than a foreclosure,” said Phipps.

NAR has been actively pushing the lending industry to improve the process for approving short sales, which represent about 13% of recent home sales, according to NAR data. Phipps praised Reps. Rooney and Andrews for their efforts on the bill and urged Congress to pass the bill quickly.

I say that’s so much wishful thinking.

April 11, 2011 … Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC), Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) all ganged up on Mortgage Electronic Registration System MERS. And I mean ganged up on it.

A consent decree was issued this Tuesday telling MERS it had 30, 60 and 90 days (respectively) to get all kinds of things done – all boiling down to:

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!

Seems the Government doesn’t like the way the foreclosure process is working out. Oh, and it’s costing everyone a LOT of money to clean up.

It appears that the nutty court cases across the country – and maybe the recent 60 Minutes segment – all have gotten the attention of our “leaders” in Washington.

But Wait; There’s More!

April 13, 2011 … In the ever increasing number of cases impacting MERS, the Federal Bankruptcy Court (Southern District – California) came out roaring – again. The case: In re Salazar . The holding: A MERS membership agreement is not the same as an assignment of the Deed of Trust. So, bye, bye, US Bank. It didn’t get the right to foreclose on Ms. Salavar. Why? Because no assignment of the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust was recorded to US Bank before the foreclosure.

Ah, those pesky little details. They’ll getcha every time.

E&O Carriers…those folks to whom you pay hard earned dollars, “just in case.”

What a crock. If there is any possible way to get out of defending a broker or agent, they’ll find it. And they are sneaky about it.

Just this week, a broker was sued, named as one of nearly a dozen defendants in one of those foreclosure “you shouldn’t have given me the loan in the first place” cases.

The broker tendered it to the E&O carrier, who picked a lawyer for the broker – and that lawyer never did a thing. I mean – NOTHING. Weeks went by, and the broker contacted the carrier again – asking if there was going to be coverage…

“Sure” said the Carrier. Who assigned a new lawyer. But nearly 60 days had already gone by. And the complaint needed to be answered within 30!

Oh, and the carrier issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter too. Finally.

Here’s the sneaky part. The Carrier’s letter stated that it was reserving the right to pay on the claim, and listed two reasons. Then it said, there might be other reasons too, that it hadn’t yet listed all of them. Huh?

The reasons the Carrier did list were: no payments on punitive damages (that’s public policy in CA), and the potential that the claim was known before the policy took effect. OK, so far.

The complaint accused the broker of intentional misconduct. It also claimed the broker was negligent. When that happens the broker gets to pick its own lawyer – which the Carrier has to pay for.

But did the Carrier say that in it’s reservation of rights letter? Hell no. Why not?

Because if the Carrier did say that, the broker would know it could pick its own attorney – and the Carrier doesn’t want that. It wants to use inept attorneys like the one who never responded in the first place.

You get what you pay for.

So, have you EVER been told of the right you have to pick your own attorney? Ever once?

I didn’t think so.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the oprices of houses are Up, and Down. Depending on where.

Seems like everyone jusst wants to ad their own shpin on a story that has no right, wrong, left or middle.

“With the National Association of Realtors reporting that home prices rose in about half of U.S. metropolitan areas in the last three months of 2010, it’s easy to think that that the housing market is showing some signs of recovery. “Home sales clearly recovered in the latter part of 2010,” Lawrence Yun, the NAR’s ever-optimistic economist says in a statement.

But the proverbial grain of salt is in order, given many other sources report prices continue falling. The Journal recently reported that home values declined in all of the 28 major metropolitan areas tracked during the fourth quarter when compared to a year earlier, and repeat-sales indexes such as the S&P/Case Shiller index have shown that prices declined in October and November.

The Realtors are looking at a different measure, median prices, which show that prices for home resales rose in about half of the nation’s 152 metro areas during the October-December quarter. Prices rose in 78 cities, fell in 71 and were unchanged in three. The group says the national median price for single-family homes was $170,600 in the fourth quarter of 2010, up 0.2% from $170,300 a year earlier.
The Washington, DC, area gained 8.1%. There were decliners: Portland, Ore., came in down 3.8% and Seattle dipped 3.9%.
Data from Zillow, however, show bigger declines in those three markets. Washington fell 5.8%, Portland declined 12.1% and Seattle tumbled 11.9%.

Why the difference? When comparing the fourth quarter of 2010 to the prior-year period, the Realtors use median price, the point where half of sales fall above and half fall below. Last year’s data still include buyers tapping a tax credit of up to $8,000. Many of those sales were first-time buyers, who typically buy lower-priced houses. The expired credit isn’t in this year’s numbers, so median prices in some markets could be higher from a year ago because the more higher-priced sales were added to the “mix” of sales.

Most industry watchers agree that the housing market must endure more pain before it can fully recover. Lending standards are tight, preventing would-be buyers from inking deals. The foreclosure crisis, meanwhile, continues with no end in sight. Many economists and housing analysts expect home prices to fall an additional 5% to 10% before prices hit the long-awaited bottom later this year or early next year.

By Alan Zibel, WSJ.com; Dawn Wotapka and Nick Timiraos contributed to this article.

…and were made privy to the offerings of 2 dozen or so vendors (like HLF).

What I found encouraging is that – even in the face of one of the most difficult markets in my career life (35 years — how did that happen?) – the level of enthusiasm remained high.

Sure, we’re all working twice as hard for half the money. But that’s what separates a professional from a wanna-be.

Keeping on top of your game, keeping informed of what’s going on. That’s the key to success in this, and in every, market.