Here’s a thought that ought to strike fear in strategic defaulters…

What impact does the “partially worthless security” exception (Calif. Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010(b)) to the “non-recourse” status of a purchase money loan (see the conjunction of CCP 726(a) and CCP 580b and 580d)?

If the lender can seek a deficiency – or foreclose judicially, even on purchase money, owner occupied, 1-4 unit loans and collect a judgment that isn’t protected by the 726/580 cocktail, because eh security was “partially worthless” – can the lender negotiate from an even stronger position to get more money from a short sale seller?

I’d urge caution…on both sides.

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.

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.

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.

“The goal is to reinstate as many borrowers in a modification that performs well,” said Tony Meola, a servicing executive with Bank of America. “It also is likely to lead to faster resolution in those unfortunate situations where foreclosure is inevitable. While not a desirable outcome, the recovery of the housing markets depends on moving through the foreclosure process as quickly and fairly as possible.”

Thus reported the New York Times.

You might want to read this: We settled with the investors, now we have to move this garbage through the system and foreclose on everything. If only the Bank would.

8 Billion (with a B) is a lot of money. But it’s a drop compared to the amount of underwater residential (we haven’t even touched commercial) loans out there.

Want to get the economy running again? Take the hits needed on these bad loans. Re-balance the balance sheet (yes, you WILL BE a smaller Bank), and then let’s get back to business.

My $0.02.

The Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast states that real estate “investors” are optimistic and buying up “class A” properties at above market value. The Orange County Register wonders is this is the beginning of a new real estate “bubble.”

Only for bubble brains, I’d say.

At the conference of bankers (senior asset managers for three SF Bay Area Banks) I attended this morning, the story was very different.

No, they are not lending on commercial properties – unless those LTVs are in the mid-60′s and the DCRs are at or above 1.35. Hell, we’d all lend on those terms.

As for their forecast: a flat bottom for the next five years.

I’d bet on the bankers. This time.

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.)