In the November 2010 press release, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said, “By banning providers of these services from collecting fees until the customer is satisfied with the results, this rule will protect consumers from being victimized by these scams.”

The MARS rule has a three-prong approach – it bans advance fees, requires certain disclosures and prohibits certain claims:

Advance Fees

Mortgage Relief companies may not collect any fee until they have provided the homeowner with:

• a written offer from their lender or servicer that the consumer decides is acceptable; and
• a written document from the lender or servicer describing the key changes to the mortgage that would result if the consumer accepts the offer.

Required Disclosures

In any advertising and in communications directed at individual consumers (such as telemarketing calls), the mortgage relief companies must make the following disclosures:

• they are not associated with the government, and their services have not been approved by the government or the consumer’s lender;
• the lender may not agree to change the consumer’s loan; and
• if companies tell consumers to stop paying their mortgage, they must also tell them that they could lose their home and damage their credit rating.

Further, these companies must also disclose in their communications to consumers that

• they can stop doing business with the company at any time,
• can accept or reject any offer the company obtains from the lender or servicer, and
• if they reject the offer, they don’t have to pay the company’s fee – said fee must also be disclosed

Prohibited Claims

The MARS Rule prohibits mortgage relief companies from making any false or misleading claims about their services, including claims about:

• the likelihood of consumers getting the results they seek;
• the company’s affiliation with government or private entities;
• the consumer’s payment and other mortgage obligations;
• the company’s refund and cancellation policies;
• whether the company has performed the services it promised;
• whether the company will provide legal representation to consumers;
• the availability or cost of any alternative to for-profit mortgage assistance relief services;
• the amount of money a consumer will save by using their services; or
• the cost of the services.

In addition, the rule prohibits mortgage relief companies from telling homeowners to stop communicating with their lenders or their representatives.   Further, these companies must also have reliable evidence to back up any claims they make about the benefits, performance, or effectiveness of the services they provide.

Lastly, it is a violation of the MARS Rule for any person to provide substantial assistance or support to a MARS Provider when that person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the MARS Provider is engaged in any act or practice that violates this Final Rule. (16 CFR Section 322.6).

Q&A:

What Exactly Are Mortgage Relief Services?

Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) are services offered or provided to a Consumer for consideration that are intended directly or indirectly to assist the Consumer with regard to:

1. Stopping or postponing a foreclosure sale;
2. Negotiating or arranging a Modification of a Dwelling Loan;
3. Obtaining a forbearance in the timing of payments due on a Dwelling Loan;
4. Negotiating or arranging any extension of the time period for curing a default or reinstating the Dwelling Loan;
5. Obtaining a waiver of an acceleration clause or balloon payment in a Dwelling Loan;
6. Negotiating or arranging a short sale, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, title reconveyance, sale/leaseback or any other disposition of the Dwelling other than a sale to a third-party purchaser;
7. Offering or conducting a Forensic Loan Audit which is a legal analysis of mortgage loan documents for the purpose of finding compliance violations under federal and/or state law or regulation for the alleged purpose of helping Consumers acquire leverage over their Servicers;
8. Marketing of services to assist consumers in selling a   Dwelling to a third party if the intent of the sale is to enable the Consumer to avoid foreclosure; and
9. Marketing of refinancing options by Mortgage Brokers if offered to avoid a foreclosure.

Does MARS Apply to Attorneys?

Attorneys are fully exempt if they:

1. Provide mortgage assistance relief as part of the practice of law;
2. Are licensed to practice law in the state in which the consumer for whom the attorney is providing mortgage assistance relief services resides or in which the consumer’s dwelling is located;
3. Comply with state laws and regulations that cover the same type of conduct the rule requires;
4. Deposit any funds received from the consumer prior to performing legal services in a client trust account and withdraw fees only as they are earned; and
5. Comply with all state laws and regulations, including licensing regulations, applicable to client trust accounts.

Does MARS Apply to Real Estate Agents?

It appears from examination of the language contained in the Supplementary Information in the Federal Register that the intent was to avoid including real estate brokers and agents handling sales of real property in the definition of MARS.  However, it is certainly clear that real estate agents and brokers handling short sales, title re-conveyance or any other sale or endeavor undertaken in an effort to stop a foreclosure sale would be covered by the MARS definition.

The Supplementary Information states that the FTC does not consider the typical functions of real estate brokers, including showing homes, finding homes for Borrowers and listing homes for sale, to be MARS functions.  Nonetheless, any endeavor undertaken by a real estate agent or broker in an effort to prevent a foreclosure other than these typical functions, such as negotiating with a Servicer the terms of a short sale,WILL be considered a MARS activity.

The MARS rule is something with which everyone involved in, either directly or indirectly, assisting consumers avoid foreclosure will need to understand and be in compliance with.  It is broad and far reaching. The penalties for non-compliance with the FTC’s new MARS rule are $11,000 a day.

Related posts:

1. DON’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU! NY Attorney General’s Crackdown on the Loan Modification Industry
2. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
3. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock

If an assignment is in writing, the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient, unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d 937, 938, 694 NYS2d 245 [1999]). A retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709, 888 NYS2d 914 [2d Dept 2009]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]).

The court also demanded the appearance of ”Sherry Hall,” who purports, in this particular case, to be the Vice President of Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., the attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff Deutsche Bank and ”Nikole Shelton,” the person who notarized Ms. Hall’s signature  in this particular action, as well as in another action entitled GMAC Mortgage, LLC v Ingoglia, also pending in Suffolk County at the November 17, 2010 foreclosure settlement conference.  Apparently, Ms. Hall is Vice President for Homecomings as well as GMAC – a state of facts that the court finds extremely suspect. Also problematic was that one of the affidavits was executed after it was notarized. I would hazard a guess that these two ladies are going to be in a bit of hot water when they appear before this judge.

This is, indeed, the tip of the iceberg.  For too long, the banks have been filing thousands of foreclosure actions without a hitch…until now.  The problem is, but, two-fold: the possible chill on lending if the banks cannot foreclosure on their security and second, those homeowners who faithfully pay their mortgages are going to be mighty upset at the thought of people getting a free house.  These are two serious issues which I believe will guide policy at the appellate level.  So although the trial courts may dismiss foreclosure actions and so forth, the appellate level might certainly see things in a far different light and have a far different ruling – if it reaches that point.  I am sure that the banks and homeowners probably reach some sort of settlement, be it modification or otherwise, so these cases do not end up on appeal.

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. Foreclosure Defense Bar: Heads Up! Forensic Exam of TBW Mortgage Corp Loan Docs Could Be Fruitful
3. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock

Do I have to really fall behind on my loan payments to be eligible for a loan modification?

No.  Borrowers must simply demonstrate that they are in danger of falling behind on their mortgage and that they don’t have sufficient income to make future mortgage payments.  Borrowers with ballooning mortgage payments or interest rates that are resetting may benefit from the new plot.

What are the loan modification requirements?

To be eligible for modification under the plot, the following criteria must be met:

• the loan must be a first mortgage on the borrower’s primary residence, and
• borrowers must currently be paying more than 31% of their monthly yucky income toward mortgage payments,

Jumbo loans that exceed Fannie or Freddie loan limits are not eligible.

Ultimately, of course, your eligibility will be determined by your mortgage lender.

What if I am “under water” and my mortgage is more than the value of my property?

As long as the amount owed on a first mortgage does not exceed 105% of the home’s current value, borrowers with limited equity can refinance into a 30-year or 15-year fixed-rate mortgage.  This refinance option is open to only to borrowers with conforming loans that are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.  Borrowers must show that  1.) they are current on mortgage payments and 2) that they will be able to meet the new mortgage payments.

How do I know if my mortgage is owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie?

Borrowers should contact their lender to see if their mortgage is owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie or you can look up your loan online here to check.

Does my lender HAVE to participate in the program?

No. Participation by lenders is voluntary, but the government provides subsidies to encourage lenders to modify loans. For example, mortgage servicers receive $1,000 for each loan modification and can also get another $1,000 annually for three years if the borrower stays current on the loan.

For more information, please visit MakingHomeAffordable.gov

Related posts:

1. Treasury Department’s “Making Home Affordable” Program Attempts to Tackle 2nd Lien Dilemna
2. Fannie and Freddie – What Went Wrong and Can It Be Fixed?
3. FHA Limits on Cash Out Refinances drops to 85%

General legal defenses to foreclosure:

1. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations enabling rescission. If your loan is a refinance, the bank must have provided you a set of disclosures at the time of closing.  If these disclosures are inaccurate, the loan is statutorily rescindable under TILA.  For example, in a foreclosure action, the finance charge must have been accurate within $35 or the loan may be rescindable.  This means the loan is cancelled and all money paid to the lender is refunded.

2. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations enabling hurts. If you bought the property  with the loan or used the proceeds to refinance and proper disclosures were not given, then you may be entitled to money hurts to offset the foreclosure.

3.       Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). This is a very powerful federal law governing high cost refinance loans.  If your loan is under $150,000 or the initial rate was above 8%, you should evaluate your loan for violations of this act.  Violations here enable rescission and substantial money hurts that can be in excess of the loan’s dollar amount.

4. Failure to Provide a Right Notice of the Right to Rescind. There is a specific notice that must be provided to refinance customers at closing.  If this form is inaccurate or incorrect, the loan is rescindable up to three years after the closing date.

5. Breach of Contract. Many times the lender will do things that are unfair or unjustified before starting the foreclosure process.  Just as you have an obligation to pay the mortgage, the lender has a responsibility not to interfere with your ability to do so – like force placing insurance making the payments substantially more expensive than they should have been.

6. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. This federal law governs many types of disclosures that lenders must provide at the time of closing, in addition to prohibiting things like kickbacks and unearned fees.  It enables hurts, and sometimes rescission if the error triggers TILA.

7. Honest Debt Collection Practices Act. This federal law requires servicers or lenders who obtain the mortgage after default follow specific protocol in attempting to collect on the debt.  A failure to follow this law enables statutory hurts and attorney’s fees.

8. Honest Credit Reporting Act. This federal law governs lenders ability to report information about the mortgage and requires the accurate reporting of negative information.  Violations of this act also enables hurts and attorney’s fees.  Punitive hurts might be available under this act.

9. Real party in interest. This is a procedural defense to foreclosure that can be extremely effective at stopping the lender’s ability to foreclose.  It essentially questions the ownership of the mortgage and questions whether the foreclosing party is, in fact, the holder of the mortgage and note.

10. Unconscionability. This defense is focused on the events surrounding the creation and closing of the mortgage loan.  A violation here gives the court fantastic leeway in deciding whether the mortgage should be voided or changed.

11. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This general defense attacks the lender’s ability to foreclose and is can be used in conjunction with one of the other foreclosure defenses.

12. Failure to establish conditions precedent. Want to get a foreclosure action thrown out of court straight away?  Use this defense that attacks the lender’s pre-foreclosure processes.

13. Failure to comply with FHA pre-foreclosure requirements. FHA requires every lender to mail a booklet called “How to Avoid Foreclosure” and set up a face-to-face meeting with the borrower before foreclosing (in most cases).  If the lender does not take these steps, then it cannot foreclose.

Related posts:

1. Help for Troubled Homeowners: Do You Qualify?
2. Seasoning and FHA’s Time Restrictions on Resales – a Legal Analysis
3. Jack of All Trades and Master of None: Attorneys Wearing Multiple Hats in a Transaction

Events:

In person networking is vital – online networking often starts the relationship but in-person cements it.  I posted several events in the NY metro area that are not be missed including the NYC Business Networking Event – Luxury Series (7/27) and Queens Real Estate Group Summer Soiree (7/28) among others.  Extend your knowledge by taking a class – Dealing with Banks: REOs and Small Sales or  a webinar such as Understanding Titles & Closings for Real Estate Investors .

Small Sales

Small Sales are now the focus of the real estate loss mitigation community and the banks have finally realized that a small sale is the premier solution as the return, dollar for dollar, is far superior to foreclosure and REO.  Check out the webinar, Understanding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac HAFA Small Sale Rules to make sure you are abreast of the new rules.  Watch some of the new videos, like Internal Bank Form Gives Insight Into Small Sales vs Foreclosure or Citimortgage Changes Small Sale Policy Again! as the banks are constantly changing how the game is played. Visit the forums as some of our own gurus post their tips and experiences.

Remember, the S&P Real Estate Networking Site is a "members-only" site so apply for membership now (it is free!) for exclusive access.

Delight in your summer!

Related posts:

1. Landlord/Tenant Law Resources on Scanlon & Pinto, PLLC Networking Site
2. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
3. DON’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU! NY Attorney General’s Crackdown on the Loan Modification Industry

The New York Court of Appeal recently opined in NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v. 573 Jackson Avenue Realty Corp., 13.N.Y.3d 573 (December 15, 2009) that the definitive requirement for redeeming real property during foreclosure proceedings  is the “unconditional tender [to the foreclosing party] of the full amount due” before auction.  This general rule in mortgage foreclosure proceedings also applies to the foreclosure of a tax lien.

But, note that the Courts will exercise their broad equitable powers to void judgments and even set aside sales (extending the homeowner's right of redemption), where homeowners are seeking to modify or reinstate their mortgages while the lender continues with the foreclosure action. Jimmy Lathrop, Esq., the Director of Foreclosure Intervention at the Brooklyn Bar Association Volunteer Lawyers Project, recently discussed in his blog post,  three cases where the court found that the homeowner's excellent faith negotiations mandated an equitable solution and a possible complete bypass of RPAPL §1341 which defines the requirements and time frame of the borrower's right of redemption.

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. DON’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU! NY Attorney General’s Crackdown on the Loan Modification Industry
3. NY Governor Looking to Expand Protections for Defaulting HomeOwners, Tenants

Having recently issued a choice canceling an Indymac mortgage lien in another foreclosure action, Judge Spinner turns his attention to the outrageous actions of Wells Fargo and holds the mortgage behemoth liable for trespass, resulting in $155,092.00 judgment, in Wells Fargo v. Tyson. At the outset, the court pointed out that the Plaintiff sent a per diem attorney to the first  settlement conference who had no knowledge of the case so that any potential progress was thwarted.  It is a common problem and a recurring complaint that usually Plaintiff’s representative, at these settlement conferences, has no authority to negotiate, thus preventing any meaningful settlement and violating the spirit of the law. Having aroused the ire of numerous judges, you would reckon that these foreclosure mill law firms would figure out that they had better send counsel with authority to enter into some sort of settlement or at least have the ability to get someone on the phone who has it.

Certain facts were not disputed – that Wells Fargo had a representative enter the premises, without notice, not once but twice.  The representative changed the locks despite the fact that the premises were obviously not abandoned by the defendant.  Defendant had previously winterized the home, secured it, maintained the exterior of the premises and did not remove his furniture, clothing, food etc.  Defendant also visited the home at least once a week and had questioned a neighbor to keep an eye on the premises.

Plaintiff relies on certain language in the mortgage itself: “Lender, and others authorized by Lender may enter on and inspect the Property. They will do so in a reasonable manner and at reasonable times. If it has a reasonable purpose, Lender may inspect the inside of the home or other improvements on the Property. Before or at the time an inspection is made, Lender will give me notice stating a reasonable purpose for such interior inspection.” as well as the express provisions in another paragraph regarding abandonment: “If…I have abandoned the Property, then Lender may do and pay for whatever is reasonable and appropriate to protect Lender’s interest in the Property…Lender’s actions may include but are not limited to: (a) protecting and/or assessing the value of the Property; (b) securing and/or repairing the Property;…Lender can also enter the Property to make repairs, change locks…and take any other action to secure the Property.”

In its analysis, the court first noted that mortgage documents and their terms are not negotiable and as such, are contracts of adhesion.  Therefore, they are to be construed strictly against the drafter – the plaintiff herein.  Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance Company 100 NY2d 377 (2000). “Under the circumstances presented to this Court, it is appropriate and honest that the terms of the instrument be construed in favor of Defendant.”  Using a honest reading of the above language, it is apparent that the Lender’s actions must be reasonable and entry can only be upon adequate notice. Further, abandonment of the property is a condition-predicate to entry and the testimony of the defendant substantiated defendant’s claims that he had not abandoned the property.

Based upon the foregoing facts, Spinner declared that the Plaintiff  engaged in a Trespass on at least two occasions:

Distilled to its very essence, trespass is characterized by one’s intentional entry, with neither permission nor legal justification, upon the real property of another, Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead 46 AD3d 802, 849 NYS2d 79 (2nd Dept. 2007). The injury arising [*4]therefrom afflicts the owner’s right of exclusive possession of the property, Steinfeld v. Morris 258 AD 228, 16 NYS2d 155 (1st Dept. 1939), Kaplan v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook 12 AD3d 410, 784 NYS2d 586 (2nd Dept. 2004). The elements of a claim for trespass are intent coupled with the entry upon the land that is in possession of another. In order for trespass to lie, general intent is legally insufficient. Instead, there must be a specific intent, either to enter the land or to engage in some act whereby it is substantially certain that such entry onto the land will result therefrom, Phillips v. Sun Oil Co. 307 NY 328, 121 NE2d 249 (1954). The intent need not be illegal or unlawful, MacDonald v. Parama Inc. 15 AD2d 797, 224 NYS2d 854 (2nd Dept. 1962) but even one who enters the land upon the erroneous belief that he has the right to enter thereon will be held liable in trespass, Burger v. Singh 28 AD3d 695, 816 NYS2d 478 (2nd Dept. 2006). Trespass will lie against a party if entry upon the land was perpetrated by a third party, such as an independent contractor or other party, at the direction of the party to be charged, Gracey v. Van Kamp 299 AD2d 837, 750 NYS2d 400 (4th Dept. 2002). Id.

Turning to the issue of hurts, the court expressed that a foreclosure action is an action in equity and as such, it may impose punitive hurts.  “In a suit in equity, the Court is empowered with jurisdiction to do that which ought to be done.” Id.  Spinner then turned to address the bank’s egregious conduct:

Here, the Court is constrained to find that the conduct of Plaintiff in this matter was both willful and wanton, as evidenced by not one but two unauthorized entries into Defendant’s dwelling, occurring in complete derogation of Defendant’s right of possession. This conduct becomes even more glaring when consideration is given to the fact that Defendant affirmatively told Plaintiff that he had secured the property and that it was not abandoned and still contained his personal property. Even so, Plaintiff maintains that it has entered the property under a color of right, which turns out to be illusory under the circumstances. In spite of these declarations, Plaintiff willfully took it upon itself to enter the property on more than one occasion, doing so unreasonably and without notice, in direct contravention of the terms of its mortgage promulgated to Defendant by its assignor. This is even more distressing when it is considered that Plaintiff breaches its obligations to Defendant under the mortgage, running roughshod over Defendant’s rights with a specious claim that it is acting to protect its rights and the property. In small, the conduct of Plaintiff was nothing small of oppressive and would best be described as heavy handed and egregious, to say the very least. Certainly, the trespass was willful and calculated and was not accidental in any way and the Court finds that Plaintiff did not act in excellent faith. Under these circumstances, an award of both actual and exemplary hurts is necessary and appropriate in order to properly compensate Defendant for the losses he has sustained by way of Plaintiff’s shockingly wrongful conduct as well as to serve as an appropriate deterrent to any future outrageous, improper and unlawful deeds.  Id.

Unfortunately, it appears that this type of behavior is not unheard of by members of the real estate bar.  One member noted that a similar situation occurred with a foreclosure defendant client of his.  Although he had secured and winterized the premises, the bank’s inspection service alleged the premises were wide open and entered the premises.  They also changed the premises, turned the valves to “turn off the water” which instead resulted with the water being turned on.  The pipes burst and flooded the home.

The court’s actions in Wells Fargo v. Tyson should send a clear and unequivocal message to Lenders and their various contractors that they do not have an absolute right to enter a mortgagor’s property and such behavior will not be tolerated.

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. NY Governor Looking to Expand Protections for Defaulting HomeOwners, Tenants
3. Real Estate Law Update: New York State Decisions of Interest

“In today’s market, FHA research finds that acquiring, rehabilitating and the reselling these properties to prospective homeowners often takes less than 90 days. Prohibiting the use of FHA mortgage insurance for a subsequent resale within 90 days of acquisition adversely impacts the willingness of sellers to allow contracts from potential FHA buyers because they must consider holding costs and the risk of vandalism associated with allowing a property to sit vacant over a 90-day period of time.”

The online real estate community was buzzing yesterday as news of this waiver spread quickly. The investor “gurus” are, of course, rejoicing and spreading the news far and wide, without a careful read of the Waiver itself.  The intent of this temporary policy change is to allow investors to take title to a property, rehab it and sell it quickly. It is not a panacea for those investors who pick up a property at a discount, seeking to flip it for a profit in a “back to back” or “double” closing.  For those types of transactions, the 90 day seasoning rule is a non-issue if you utilize a land trust correctly.

HUD’s Mortgagee Letter 2006-14 clarified the Rule and Regulations set forth in 24 CFR 203.37a concerning the eligibility of properties for FHA insurance and the rules governing sales of property.  As I have discussed in a previous blog post,  Legal Analysis of FHA’s Seasoning Requirements, the real estate and mortgage industry routinely misunderstands and applies these eligibility rules incorrectly and it appears that the trend is continuing with this new Waiver.

FAQS:

1. Does it have to be a property bought through a small sale, bank auction or an REO to be eligible under the Waiver?

No. There are no requirements in the Waiver concerning the status of the property itself.  It is not necessary to demonstrate the distressed nature of the property.

2. So I can get a property under contract, do a contract with a potential FHA buyer and close with my FHA buyer the same day or the day after I buy the property?

No this transaction would not be eligible for FHA insurance. The waiver is really of the requirement that the real estate contract be executed on the 91st day after the investor takes title to the property. The requirement that the investor own the property is still in effect and therefore Contract Vendees and Assignments of contract are still prohibited.  Further, an application for an FHA mortgage cannot be submitted to a Lender for consideration without a fully executed Contract.  Therefore, Back to Back Closings will be impossible.

3. So I can close a week after I take title?

Virtually impossible for several reasons. I venture that there are nearly no Lenders in this post-bubble market that will take an application for an FHA mortgage and be in a position to close a week later.  I am going to stretch that to probably 30 days.  This is certain if your sale price to your FHA buyer is 20% or more higher than your acquisition price (do the math – its not that hard to hit that number – especially in certain areas of the country where housing prices are below $50,000). If the sale price exceeds the 20% threshhold, the investor will have to document the increase in value with supporting documentation and/or a second appraisal and the Lender will have to obtain a Property Inspection Report (see paragraph 2 of the Waiver).  This report will not be ordered prior to application submittal and as discussed previously, that doesn’t take place until there is a fully executed Contract of Sale.

4. I found this fantastic property that my buddy picked up 2 months ago for $120,000.00.  He rehabbed it and I am in contract to buy it from him for $220,000.  I want to flip it to an FHA buyer for $250,000.00 can I do it?

You will have to wait until the 91st day after you close title to enter into a Contract of Sale with the FHA buyer. The Waiver will not apply if there is a history of prior flipping activity in the 12 month chain of title (see paragraph 1(c) of the Waiver).

5. In April, the Treasury’s Small Sale Program goes into effect and there should be a lot of distressed properties coming on to the market. The Waiver is going to be a huge help in moving those properties!

No, it isn’t.  Apparently, government offices do not communicate with each other before issuing rulings – one of the requirements under the Treasury small sale program is that the Contract include a representation that the Purchaser will hold the property for 90 days post-closing.  Perhaps the Treasury will revise its Directive and remove this offending language (which, as I had discussed previously, is extremely small-sighted).

Conclusion

Investors should rejoice as finally they are receiving the recognition they deserve: properties are moving because of their hard work and without the proper incentive, it wouldn’t happen. Instead of being the black sheep of the real estate community, investors are a major part of the solution.  This Waiver is what investors need to get the properties rehabbed, sold and occupied to ameliorate the problem of abandoned and blighted homes. It is not a license to flip and should you wish to engage in that type of activity, you will not be able to use this Waiver to accomplish your goals.

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. Seasoning and FHA’s Time Restrictions on Resales – a Legal Analysis
3. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock

Small sale transactions are essential to go properties in furtherance of rebuilding our economy. They directly benefit several parties including:

• the distressed homeowner: unburdened by debt he cannot afford without the same level of credit score hurt a foreclosure would cause as well as possible deficiency judgments;
• the real estate agent: earns commissions (provides jobs etc);
• the small sale bank: removes nonperforming assets from its books,  usually at far less of a loss than if the property became an REO; and
• real estate investors: acquiring properties at a discount provides incentive to negotiate as well as to seek out qualified purchasers

Part of the fallout from the real estate market crash is a rash of negativity aimed directly at real estate investors.  They, along with mortgage brokers and other members of the real estate community, are being made the scapegoats for the Housing Bubble.  I’m going to clue you in on a small secret – it really wasn’t them.  Not that there weren’t unscrupulous investors, loan officers etc. – far from it.  Point the finger directly at the Banks and the Government. The Banks needed those deals to package up and sells as mortgage backed securities on Wall Street.  When there was not enough product, they lowered their standards to bring in more loans. They blatantly ignored fraud reports and lended on questionable properties. The banks made exotic loan products and recklessly offered them without regard to ability to pay.  The Government wanted to increase homeownership among minorities – hence ACORN. It made several programs and incentives to push the percentage of homeownership way above the standard amount.  I am also going to point the finger at the American Homeowner who chose to use their home as an ATM, or who lied on their loan applications because they needed to compete with the Joneses.  Lets also add real estate agents to the mix who fought for higher and higher appraised values and selected comparables for their Broker Price Opinions (BPO) to influence the appraiser to come in higher. (RANT finished)

These very parties, who irresponsibly handed money to unqualified buyers on overvalued properties, as part of their attempt to pass the blame to real estate investors, are throwing around the “fraud” mark with regard to flipping small sale transactions (for more discussion on Small Sale Fraud please read my prior blog post). In an attempt to curtail the investor’s ability to flip these properties, some banks are including “no-flip” clauses in their small sale approval letters. I have seen this language in Bank of America, GMAC, EMC,Countrywide to name a few.  There are varying forms of this language from purporting to restrict the transfer of the subject property for 30 days post closing to voiding the transfer and reinstating the note and security agreements, post-closing, if the bank determines that there was fraud.

The simplest language to address in the 30 day post-closing restriction on transfer.  Lets review basic contract law and the doctrine of privity.  Basically a contract does not confer rights or impose obligations upon anyone except for the parties to it. The contractual relationship is between the homeowner and the bank. The small sale approval is a settlement of the debt obligation between these parties.  The bank has no contractual relationship with the investor and/or buyer and therefore this language, purporting to impose a restriction on the investor/buyer, is unenforceable against the investor/buyer. With respect to the other no-flip clauses, Bob Massey does an brilliant job of explaining how to handle those banks in his video:

I have located an underwriting bulletin from Stewart title which addresses these problematic clauses in small sale approval letters.  It indicates that such language makes the transaction “uninsurable”.  As Massey suggests, request that the clause be removed from the small sale approval letter as title will not insure the transaction and provide a copy of the title bulletin to support your argument. You might have to bypass the negotiator and contact a supervisor but this should be sufficient to persuade them to delete the offending language.

What have you encountered and what has worked for you? Please comment!

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. PropertyShark University – Short Sales Class – Tues June 17, 2008 – Don’t Miss It!!!
3. Buyer $5,000 Short – How to Close the Gap…from a NY Point of View

Highlights of the HAFA program are as follows:

• Servicers have 10 days to approve or disapprove a request for small sale.
• Uses borrower financials and other documents already submitted for a loan modification.
• Allows borrowers to receive pre-approved small sales terms before listing the property (including the minimum acceptable net proceeds).
• Prohibits servicers from requiring a reduction in the real estate commission agreed upon in the listing agreement (up to 6 percent).
• Requires borrowers to be fully released from future liability for the first mortgage debt (no cash contribution, promissory note, or deficiency judgment is allowed).
• Uses standard processes, documents, and timeframes/deadlines.
• Provides financial incentives: $1,500 for borrower relocation help; $1,000 for servicers to cover administrative and processing costs; and up to $1,000 for investors (note holders).
• Caps proceeds to second lien holders at $3,000.00. (fascinating but I wonder at how those lien holders in the second position feel about this)

Requirements:

• Loan must be HAMP eligible – Services must evaluate a buyer for a HAMP modification first before giving any consideration for a HAFA small sale or Deed in Lieu (DIL);
• Property is borrower’s principal residence;
• the mortgage is a first lien and was originated before January 1, 2009;
• the loan must be delinquent or default reasonably foreseeable;
• loan amount limit is 729,750 (on 1 family units);
• borrower’s total monthly payment exceeds 31 percent of the home owner’s income and attested to by affidavit;
• Sale must be an arm’s length agreement and the buyer must agree not to sell the property for 90 days (problematic and I believe will diminish the potential of this program);
• Requires property to be listed with a real estate broker (I wonder who lobbied for this…so this has to be added on to the  servicer’s Minimum Net Proceeds and thus increases the cost to Purchaser)

While I admire the government’s attempt at allieviating the small sale log jam, as usual, they overstep their bounds. The American people are being questioned to yet again foot the bill for the banks’ irresponsible lending practices to the tune of $3,000 per closing.  Further, mandating that properties be listed with a real estate broker across the board is excessive and will, in effect, add to the buy price paid by the prospective buyer.  The arm’s length rule eliminates family attempting to save the home and the 90 day prohibition against resale will chill real estate investor participation which plays a major role in moving houses (I find this restraint on alienation to be disturbing as well and question its enforceability). Lastly, I question how many second lienholders are going to participate with their payments limited to $3,000.00.  Without their participation, it will be an exercise in futility as many of these homeowners have 2 loans.

Related posts:

1. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock
2. Treasury Department’s “Making Home Affordable” Program Attempts to Tackle 2nd Lien Dilemna
3. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!