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.)

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 116.221 & 116.224 were amended by Calif S.B. 221 and these changes are effective: January 1, 2012 until January 1, 2015. They increase the amount that an individual can sue for in small claims court to $10,000.

(Companies are still limited to only $5,000 per claim.)

Why is this important? And why only through 2015 – when the law reverts to the $5,000 level (or maybe the $7,500 level it was also temporarily raised to a few years ago…)?

Beats me.

It might make it interesting for all those borrowers who had “oral promises” from banks not to foreclose – to bring an action in small claims (you know, quick and dirty street justice a’ la Judges Judy or Whapner) for breach of the oral agreements.

That could be fun. And $10k makes it worth while to do – for a filing fee of about $50 bucks (more or less…).

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…

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.)

Some people still wonder if they should walk away from their loans – to simply stop paying and let the Bank foreclose.

Others are prevented from doing so – solely by the image of their Grandfather scolding them to keep their promises to the Banks – and continue to make payments on mortgages on houses that will never (if you count 10 years or more of lost value as “never”) recover their value.

Commentators say that it makes sense to strategically default (to walk away) if the loan to value ratio is 167%. Others say 125%.

I say, if the loan is between $0 and $50,000 more than the home’s value – think about it. If the home is more than $50,000 underwater, I want a really good excuse as to why you would want to stay. If it’s more than $75,000 underwater, I want to know why you waited so long to begin not making payments.

Sure there are tax ramifications (in some – but not all cases). Sure there are credit score hits. BUT, credit scores can be rebuilt – whereas lost money is lost forever.

When confronted with the choice of making mortgage payments on $100,000 of underwater debt, or making those same payments to the kids’ college fund – I know which way Grandpa would tell you to go.

A recent article (( http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/reo-resales-in-ca/ )) in first tuesday, a California real estate centric on-line magazine (with views that match mine – most of the time) predidcts REO sales to remain above thier historical 9% until 2017. I bet they are right.

Prices continued to drop in CA this year – with about an average 1-% year-to-year decline. More in some regions, it’s even worse.

Will ‘it’ ever end? Best to stop thinking that way. “It” is the new normal. Let’s all get used to it.

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.

This last weekend, the New Your Times published a story that, quite frankly, shows why the financial markets are so f*$#%’d up.

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