Just last week, in Harbour Vista, LLC v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., 2011 WL 6318525 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2011), the California Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs may not obtain default judgments in quiet title actions. But … (And the “But” is fascinating.)

Harbour owned a ground lease under a condo complex. Julie Nugent purchased a condo and paid her mortgage to Fieldstone Mortgage Company. She also subleased from and paid rent to Harbour. Both the mortgage and the sub-lease were secured by the condo. Nugent eventually defaulted on both her rent and mortgage. After HSBC purchased the condo from Fieldstone at a foreclosure sale, Harbour filed a complaint to quiet title. HSBC failed to respond to the complaint and Harbour obtained a default judgment. HSBC then moved to set aside the default judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. HSBC appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment based on the language of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 764.010, which expressly provides that the “court shall not enter judgment by default.” According to the Court, this language “is unequivocal,” and the “prohibition against default judgments in quiet title actions appears absolute.” The statute does not, however, prevent a quiet title plaintiff from taking a default.

Instead of a default judgment, after taking a default, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the parties (including the defaulted defendant) are entitled to present evidence regarding their conflicting claims to the property. Thus, even though HSBC had not answered the complaint and was in default, the trial court should have allowed HSBC to present evidence about its claim to the condo. Once a court holds a properly noticed evidentiary hearing, it may render a regular judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law regardless of whether the defaulted defendant appears.

Here is the fascinating part …

Though a defaulted defendant has a right to appear at the evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff has no obligation to provide notice to the defaulted defendant of this hearing. Nor does the plaintiff have any obligation “to serve documents or give notice of any future court dates” to the defaulted defendant.

If the defaulted defendant nevertheless learns of the evidentiary hearing and appears, it may be heard.

If it does not appear, the Court will proceed and render judgment without the participation of the defaulted defendant. Following the evidentiary hearing, the Court should issue a judgment resolving all issues as to title.

Imagine the HOA’s joy:  It gets a default, then notices the prove-up hearing without the need to even give notice to the other side.  Talk about form over substance.

Other causes of action and claims for relief will not be addressed at this evidentiary hearing and are not affected by this rule. If a defendant defaults as to other claims, normal procedures for obtaining entry of default and default judgment apply.

So did the lenders win?  Or not?  I’d say not.

Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , (N.D.Cal.)
January 11, 2012

A borrower stated a claim against a lender for violations of TILA disclosure requirements by alleging that the lender had failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that payment schedules for an option adjustable rate mortgage (Option ARM) on the borrower’s residence were not based on the actual interest rate, and that negative amortization would occur if the borrower followed the payment schedule provided. The court found that the borrower’s state law claims for aiding and abetting fraud, fraud through misrepresentation in an oral contract, and breach of contract were not preempted by Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA), but that HOLA preempted his claim for fraudulent omissions.


New laws that have come into effect include such things as the DRE’s new mandate for “consumer protection” (read: get the brokers) and notice to buyers regarding water conserving plumbing fixtures (has the crap really hit the fan yet?).

More to follow in the next few days.

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.

He’s baaaaaaack!
A week away for vacation, and look what happens!

As we’ve pointed out before, there is a conflict between California Appellate Courts and the Federal Bankruptcy Courts in California with respect to the authority MERS has to assign notes and deeds of trust. Looks like the California Appellate Courts are going to hold their position!

In a June 2011 case, Ferguson v. Avelo Mortgage, LLC (2011), Cal.App.4th , (2nd District, case B223447), the Court addressed the conflict directly, and said, in essence: We don’t care what the Federal Bankruptcy Courts have to say, we’re not stuck with their rulings, and we won’t follow them.

Specifically, the Court said:

“Appellants cite two federal cases for the proposition that MERS, as the nominee of the lender under a deed of trust, does not possess the underlying promissory note and cannot assign it, absent evidence of an explicit authorization from the original lender. (See Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hillery (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2008, No. C-08-4357) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100056; see also In re Agard (Bankr. E.D. N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011, No. 10-77338-reg) 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 488.) Not all courts agree on this issue and appellants do not distinguish nor address other cases that have upheld MERS’s ability to assign a mortgage. (See US Bank, N.A. v. Flynn (N.Y.Sup. 2010) 897 N.Y.S.2d 855, 859 [assignee of MERS has standing to initiate foreclosure proceeding because where "an entity such as MERS is identified in the mortgage indenture as the nominee of the lender and as the mortgagee of record and the mortgage indenture confers upon such nominee all of the powers of such lender, its successors and assigns, a written assignment of the note and mortgage by MERS, in its capacity as nominee, confers good title to the assignee and is not defective for lack of an ownership interest in the note at the time of the assignment"]; see also Crum v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 18, 2009, No. 2080110) 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 491 at pp. *6-7.) We are not bound by federal district and bankruptcy court decisions, and the cases cited by appellants are in direct conflict with persuasive California case law.”

So much for the brethren following one another. But what the hell, those pesky bankruptcy judges don’t know what they’re doing anyway. Sure.

Then the California Court addressed what other California Courts had to say on the issue by reviewing the earlier Gomes decision.

“The [Gomes] court rejected Gomes’s argument that MERS lacked authority to initiate the foreclosure procedure because the deed of trust explicitly provided MERS with the authority to do so. The court found that the “deed of trust contains no suggestion that the lender or its successors and assigns must provide Gomes with assurances that MERS is authorized to proceed with a foreclosure at the time it is initiated.” (Id. at p. 1157.) Thus, Gomes acknowledged MERS’s authority to foreclose by entering into the deed of trust.”

After agreeing with the Appellants’ claim that the Notice of Default was indeed defective, the Ferguson Court ignored the strict compliance with statutory requirements Courts are requiring of borrowers, and gave Banks this gift:

“Appellants offer no authority for the proposition that the defective nature of the initial notice of default corrupted all subsequent steps in the nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding such that the sale was void, not merely voidable.”

Why is that important?

Because “voidable” sales require a borrower to tender full payment as part of the complaint to set aside a foreclosure. “Void” sales do not.

Looks like the Banks won another round. The result may well have been different if the borrower/appellant had had a lawyer – rather than try to argue this appeal herself.

Oh how I do LOVE first tuesday. Here’s their latest take on Bank of America’s “new and improved” loan modification centers. (And, while they don’t use the word ‘bullshit’ – which I would – they come pretty darn close!)

“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.”

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.

firsttuesday online reports that “40% of all California resale activity in the first quarter of 2011 can be attributed to real estate owned (REO) inventory — 3% lower than the same period in 2010. REO resales varied significantly from county to county, from rates as low as 12% in San Francisco County to as high as 61% in Stanislaus County.

68,239 Notices of Default (NODs) were recorded in California in the first quarter of 2011, down from 81,054 in the first quarter of 2010. By percentage, the most notable drops in NODs took place in Imperial (-41%), Merced (-28%), San Benito (-28%), and Monterey (-27%) counties.

This is the lowest number of NODs issued in any quarter since the second quarter of 2007. NOD volume peaked in the first quarter of 2009 with 135,431 NODs recorded. 2010’s peak was the third quarter, with 83,261 NODs recorded.

Also in the first quarter of 2011, a total of 43,052 homes were foreclosed upon. This is up from the recent low of 35,431 in the fourth quarter of 2010, and slightly higher than the 42,857 homes forclosed on one year earlier.

Statewide, high-tier regions (zip codes with median home prices higher than $800,000) saw an 8% increase in foreclosures from the fourth quarter of 2010, and a 2% drop over the preceding year. Foreclosures in low-tier areas (zip codes with prices lower than $200,000) rose 23% from the fourth quarter of 2010, dropping 2% from one year earlier. Low-tier neighborhoods continue to see the highest concentration of both NODs and foreclosures.

The most recent data indicates that it takes an average of nine months to complete a trustee’s sale following the recording of the NOD. One year earlier, foreclosure proceedings generally elapsed over an average period of seven and a half months. MDA Dataquick, a real estate information service, sees the extended processing time as a product of legal complications and lender backlogs combined with the pursuit of loan modifications and short sales to circumvent foreclosure.

It is estimated that 24% of homes sold at trustee’s sales were bought by individuals other than the lender or government groups — almost unchanged from 25% last year, indicating that speculators are not yet gone from the real estate market.”

I’d bet that the drop in the overall number of foreclosures is becasuse the “sub-prime” folks are already far into the foreclosure system – thus new” foreclosures aren’t impacted by them. So where are the numbers coming from? STRATEGIC defaulters. That’s my bet. It’s the folks that have homes so far underwater that it makes no sense to continue to pay the mortgages – even if they can afford to do so. And many can. Many could have – but used up all their savings doing so. If only they had let it go to default sooner?

The mess continues.

Much of this article is reprinted from the first tuesday Journal Online — firsttuesdayjournal.com P.O. Box 20069, Riverside, CA 92516

Lance Churchull writes:
“One thing I have wondered about in the past is why the two government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found it necessary to have different rules for short sales, but then I remembered that the “G” in GSE stood for government and, of course, the government usually makes things more complicated than they should be. Well, on April 28, 2011, the Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA), which has been overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since their near financial collapse, decided it would be better if they had uniform rules for delinquent mortgages. The FHFA has directed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac align their guidelines for servicing delinquent mortgages they own or guarantee with the stated purpose of creating an updated framework that will establish uniform servicing requirements for how delinquent mortgages are handled, including the short sale process. The director of FHFA said, “Once fully implemented, the enterprises’ aligned policies will require earlier contact, more frequent communication and prompt decisions.”

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.

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.