The Hardship Outlays to protect Mortgagee Equity Act (HOME) is the legislation currently being discussed in Washington. HOME proposes to allow underwater homeowners to make tax-penalty-free hardship withdrawals from their 401(k) retirement accounts to avoid foreclosure.

The way the tax code currently stands, individuals who make early hardship withdrawals from their 401(k) accounts pay a 10% penalty in addition to income taxes. HOME pushes to remove the penalty and grant homeowners the right to withdraw up to $50,000 to either pay a delinquent mortgage, make up for lost household income or incorporate it in a lender’s loan modification arrangement. The legislation provides withdrawals be capped at 50% of the 401(k) account and requires the withdrawn amount be spent within 120 days. Proponents of HOME believe the plan gives distressed homeowners one last alternative to foreclosure while avoiding additional government expenditures.

This is the MOST STUPID of all the dumb, dumber and dumbest of the Federal Programs I’ve seen yet.

Let’s think about it.

The Homeowner should take money out of a 401(k) retirement account and dump it into an underwater home loan.

What stupid goober thought this one up? Some Banker I’d bet.

Who wins in this? The Banks – who get paid on a mortgage that should be flushed down the toilet; and the Federal Government (those folks that de-regulated the Banking Industry and allowed all this to happen in the first place) – who will have to continue to bail out the Banks if the homeowner defaults.

Why – WHY! – would someone with an ounce of sense want to spend “good” retirement money on a “bad” mortgage? They won’t.

Write off the loan losses.
Take the hit.

Yes, it will hurt the already hurt economy even more. But then – and only then – will we be able to begin a true recovery.

“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.

 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.

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.”

“Six new Bank of America (BofA) mortgage help centers will be opened in Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside/San Bernardino, Antelope Valley, Modesto and Bakersfield by early summer. These new mortgage help centers will provide homeowners in danger of foreclosure on a BofA loan the ability to discuss their individual loan situations with BofA staff in hopes of obtaining the near-mythical permanent loan modification.

This newly-announced move comes in response to a scathing critique (full of bark, but oddly bite-less) of the Big Banks’ loose lending and servicing procedures which precipitated the Great Recession.

The housing counselors staffing these new mortgage help centers will be comprised largely of existing BofA employees the Big Bank is looking to redistribute during the current slowdown in loan originations.

But will these six new mortgage help centers actually help? The critics are skeptical. Like many Americans, the pundits have taken a “we’ll-believe-it-when-we-see-it” attitude to the multitude of reform promises made by the Big Banks. These centers, after all, aren’t changing BofA’s modus operandi; they merely provide friendlier faces for their refusals.

first tuesday Take: Count us as one of the critics, but don’t believe the modifications will somehow magically flow forth. Viewed in the best light, BofA is 1) providing its homeowners with a more reliable way of reaching someone who will deny their loan modification requests, and 2) giving its under-employed employees something to do. But we are talking about a bank here, so the likelihood that this move will live up to the best possible interpretation is pretty darned miniscule.

It’s been clear for awhile that marking all these loans to market will hugely undermine (and that’s a nice way of saying “topple”) BofA’s claim to solvency. And even if you believe BofA cares for its customers, it doesn’t care enough for them to go out of business. [For more on mark-to-market vs. mark-to-management accounting, see the October 2010 first tuesday article, Deflation’s push on the real estate recovery.]

So, we’ll say this for BofA: they can be congratulated on their ability to get press coverage on their staffing acuity while they avoid increasing the swollen ranks of California’s unemployed. But mortgage assistance? Don’t count on it.”

From first tuesday Journal Online — P.O. Box 20069, Riverside, CA 92516

The Ney Work Times reported on teh story May 5. Some of its commentary:

“Just over two million homes are in foreclosure nationwide, according to LPS Mortgage Monitor, and another two million borrowers are severely delinquent.

Additional centers may open later this year, the bank said. Counselors fluent in languages including Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian will be available for non-English speaking customers.

‘There are some people that prefer a face-to-face experience,’ said Rebecca Mairone, national mortgage outreach executive for Bank of America. ‘They prefer telling their story face to face or need additional information about documents or other counseling. We’re committed to helping distressed customers.’

Most of the counselors in the new centers will be transferred from other areas of the mortgage business, like sales and originations, which have slowed with the decline in mortgage demand.

Bank of America officials said their internal foreclosure procedures had changed in the wake of public criticism, and that the centers were being opened partly in response to customer feedback.”

“THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT PREFER THE FACE TO FACE EXPERIENCE”?

“WE’RE COMMITTED TO HELPING DISTRESSED CUSTOMERS”

“MOST OF THE COUNSELORS WILL BE TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER AREAS OF THE MORTGAGE BUSINESS”

What a crock.

It would have been more honest to say: “We don’t want any more bad press so we’re not going to announce layoffs of our mortgage staff, and it’s better public relations to give our customers a face to face denial.”

 The Dodd-Frank Act is 2,314 pages of disjointed and wide spread enabling legislation that will impact all areas of the financial structure.  To see the briefest summary I have been able to locate, 16 pages, go to http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dodd_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf.

Among other things the Act creates a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPF), funded by the Federal Reserve system.  The CPF, which comes into existence on July 21, 2011 unless delayed for up to one year, will have broad sweeping enforcement powers in all areas of consumer finance including home loans, car loans, student loans, payday loans, credit cards, all mortgage related businesses and credit reports. It will also oversee banks and credit unions with assets in excess of $10 billion.  And the CFP has the authority to write its own regulations and then enforce them.

It is the most far reaching intrusion of government into the financial lives of its citizens in the history of the world. Many of the regulations they will be charged with enforcing have not even been written or finalized yet so the true scope of the CPF is not known, and it comes into existence in a few days.

In the area of real estate CPF will take over the power of enforcing RESPA from HUD. To bring about this transfer HUD has withdrawn all previously issued informal opinion letters. If your business is pursuing a business model in reliance on an informal opinion letter from HUD that it does not violate their rules you will need to be looking at the rules from the new Bureau to see if you are still ok.

CPF will take over enforcement of MARS from the FTC.  The FTC had been working with NAR to fine tune the regulation to remove real estate brokers from most of the regulatory requirements.  In early May the FTC advised NAR that they will not be revising the rule as promised, presumably because the CPF will now be responsible for the rule.

Part of the Act creates the Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM) standards which generally will require that all buyers put 20% or more down for a conventional loan and meet fairly conservative qualifying ratios. And the lender will need to insure that the borrower has the ability to repay the loan.  Will non-QRM loans be available?  Potentially.  But if the borrower gets a non-QRM loan and then runs into trouble making the payments the borrower will have the ability to prevent foreclosure at any time during the life of the loan by claiming that the lender had no reasonable belief that the borrower could repay the loan at the time it was made.  Do you think you will see many of those loans?

What risk does Dodd-Frank bring to a real estate professional?  Any violation of CFP regulations can result in a fine of $5,000 per day.  A reckless violation can result in a fine of $25,000 per day.  A knowing or willful violation can result in a flat fee fine of $1 million.

So why have you not heard more about this in the industry or in the media? As I mentioned earlier, the regulations to implement much of this are still under development. No one is sure yet what the rules will be in order to advise you accordingly. In the future you will need to be diligent in watching for any news about Dodd-Frank and determining how it may impact you personally or professionally.

Defining the qualified residential mortgage (QRM) is testing the mettle of the government’s commitment to stability in the real estate market.

QRMs, established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), are loans meeting low-risk standards which exempt lenders from having to retain any part of these loans in their portfolios.

New proposals by federal agencies and the administration restrict the designation of QRM to loans in which homebuyers put down at least 20% of the purchase price of a home as down payment, colloquialized as “having skin in the game.”

The proposed down payment requirement alone has sparked fierce debate in real estate circles and the media, but it’s far from the only proposed restriction on what qualifies as a QRM. The designation of QRM is restricted to:

. first-lien mortgages to purchase or refinance a one-to-four unit principal residence;
. mortgages amortizing over 30 years or less;
. borrowers who are not currently 30 or more days past due on any debt;
. borrowers who have not been 60 or more days past due on any debt within the last 24 months;
. borrowers who have not, in the past 36 months:
– filed for bankruptcy;
– had property repossessed or foreclosed on;
– engaged in a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure; or
– been subject to a federal or state judgment for the collection of a debt;
. loans with interest rates adjusting no more than two percent in any 12-month period, and no more than six percent over the life of the loan, if the loan is an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM);
. mortgages which do not contain prepayment penalties;
. loan-to-value ratios of 70% for rate-and-term refinances and 75% for cash-out refinances;
. debt-to-income ratios of 28% for all mortgage debt, called the front-end ratio, and 36% for all debt, called back-end ratio;
. standard documentation loans;
. loans with points and fees of 3% of the loan amount or less; and
. non-assumable loans.

Any loans not meeting all the above requirements would require lenders and securitizers to hold in reserve an amount equal to 5% of the loan balance in their portfolios, as recovery funds in case of default. This means any borrower who does not qualify for a QRM — i.e., the vast majority of borrowers — would be subject to higher interest rates to cover the increased risk a non-QRM would pose to lenders.

Federal Housing Administration (FHA)- and Veterans Administration (VA)-insured loans, as well as loans sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (while they remain under government control) are not subject to the QRM requirements under the proposal.

If passed, the rules outlined in the proposal will not be implemented until mid-2012.

The zero-sum game lenders will play.

Ah, lenders. The idea of retaining any risk for the loans they originate has them running a bit scared. At this point, we can only speculate on what tricks lenders will devise to get around the rules that borrowers and the rest of the consuming public have to play by — and make no mistake, lenders will do so.

Many of the proposed QRM requirements would set groundwork for a stable housing policy (down payment requirements, strict DTI ratios), separating those who are truly financially able to take on the burden of homeownership from those who are tenants-by-nature. However, it’s important to note the distinction between QRM and a non-QRM are not prohibitive; lenders can still lend to non-QRM-eligible borrowers.

And Americans still have a huge appetite for homeownership in spite of the unmanageable financial risks it poses to most homeowners. A recent study shows Americans are still very willing to glut themselves on housing and mortgage debt, regardless of the financial malaise which follows. Thus, the strict definition of the QRM will only lead to more marginalized types of borrowing — the non-QRM-eligible borrowers will almost certainly be charged higher interest rates, thus perpetuating the cycle of non-QRM-eligible borrowers being more likely to default.

Likewise, the three-year restriction against borrowers who participated in a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure carries the weight of punitiveness by classification, not ability to pay. Borrowers may have taken it upon themselves to buy (or refinance) when the market value of their properties were worth more than fundamentals dictated, but lenders had no qualms about originating these loans at the time, knowing quite well their conduct was a financial accelerator recklessly driving home prices up. Will restricting short-sale participants from being eligible for a QRM really lead to fewer people overpaying for their homes or defaulting?

Solution or punishment?

The importance of a stable housing policy promoting stable homeownership is paramount, but the strictness of the QRM may be based on reactions to the most recent housing crisis rather than truly crafting a stable housing policy. The strict differentiation between QRMs and non-QRMs merely gives lenders the ability to pawn off their 5% risk-retention onto underqualified homebuyers and homeowners; it’s a zero-sum risk reduction for lenders.

Brokers and agents would do well to be aware of how this proposal fares in the coming months. The proposal is open for comment through June 10, 2011. Comment can be submitted to any of the participating agencies via methods outlined on pages two and three of the proposal, which can be read in its entirety on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)’s website.

From: the first tuesday Journal Online — P.O. Box 20069, Riverside, CA 92516.

The aligned guidelines will also govern the “dual track” foreclosure process by requiring the servicers to immediately contact delinquent borrowers in an effort to resolve a delinquency. The foreclosure process may not commence if the borrower and the servicer are engaged in a good faith effort to solve the delinquency. In the event that the property is referred to foreclosure, financial incentives would be provided to encourage the servicers to help continue the borrowers pursue a foreclosure alternative such as a short sale.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae must issue the new guidelines to their servicers on or before September 30, 2011. Having reviewed the actual and very detailed servicing announcements by both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that seems like an awfully long time to implement the new rules. However, given the fact it took Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eight months to implement a HAFA program that was nearly the same as the Treasury Department’s program, I guess it is reasonable for them to take five months to align their loss mitigation rules.

One of the new policies that agents will like is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have the same borrower package for borrowers to be considered for all workout and foreclosure avoidance solutions, including HAMP modifications and short sales. When the borrower’s package is received, it is required that at the beginning of the process there be a simultaneous evaluation of borrowers for both the HAMP and HAFA programs. An additional new standard that agents will applaud is that there will be a uniform case escalation process which requires acknowledgement of an escalation request within three business days after receipt and adherence to a 30-day maximum total time to resolve an escalated case.

Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sales constitute a large portion of the short sale market, new uniform short sale guidelines and procedures for non-HAFA short sales would certainly be welcomed by the real estate industry. Let’s hope that the new guidelines, when they are issued, will actually simplify and expedite the process, and that the servicers will effectively implement the new rules. Stay tuned for updates on this topic, but don’t hold your breath in anticipation of seeing the newly aligned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sale rules very soon.”

I couldn’t agree more.

You’ve got to love the FDIC “investigator” who got a bug up his butt, and sought out, and sent a secret investigator (posing as a hot chick trolling for a guy) to dupe a borrower into “confessing” he’d lied on a “liar loan” (what we in the biz refer to as a “stated income” loan).

Really?

Really!

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Why the hell aren’t these precious Federal Resoutrces spend tracking down and throwing the Financial Executives that perpetrated this fraud, in jail?

Read on, and be astounded!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html

I wonder how much money MERS just lost on all those fees it was generating?

And how will the true servicers will feel about having to foreclose the old way?