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

It is not light reading by a long stretch. Understanding the securitization process from the originator to the Trustee, locating and understanding the governing document, the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA), is no simple matter. But we have done just that and analyzed numerous defective Assignments of Mortgage for New York City properties.  These banks and their respective attorneys flagrantly ignore the rule of law, routinely perjury themselves, do documents without authority, and directly violate the terms of the PSA.  These banks have also been paid over and over for the same loan because of the over-collateralization of these mortgage securities, but seek to enrich themselves further by availing themselves of the remedy of foreclosure.  And yet, the tax payer pays them yet again, via the Obama Administration, instead of taking that same money to make jobs to bolster our sagging economy.

These banks are posting record profits for 2010 as our country fails to recover for lack of not only jobs but of credit.  The purpose of the TARP funds was to give an incentive to the banks to extend credit but they failed to do so and really decreased lending.  Congress, in their haste, failed to include any strings in that gift package.  The Wall Street Journal indicated that such failure was the reason for the decreased lending:

The fact that loan portfolios are shrinking at many of the largest TARP recipients underscores how few strings Treasury Department officials attached to the infusions. That has made it hard to prevent banks from using the money to pay dividends, make acquisitions and fund bonuses for top executives.

Pioneers saw what the banks were doing – getting rich from tax payers’ monies and then enriching themselves further through foreclosure of these overcollateralized securities or peoples’ homes. They fought the banks in court by going back to the basics and not just blinding accepting the banks’ right to foreclose on their “security”.  It started with “produce the note” because the whole mortgage industry had gotten sloppy and couldn’t locate their documents.  But then it went further, questioning whether the bank really owned the Note and if you could foreclose on a mortgage once it had morphed into a security. MERS‘ role was being investigated and foreclosure defense lawyers questioned whether or not it could bring a foreclosure action as plaintiff, because it did not really own the Note as well as failed to maintain a proper chain of assignment.

These very foreclosure defense attorneys and judges, inundated with millions of foreclosure actions, started to see an hideous pattern and the same names over and over again, executing assignments, affidavits of merit etc.  Brooklyn’s own Judge Schack has been on the forefront of demanding legal compliance from the banks and making them account for their failure to adhere to the law as well as outright committing fraud.  Our courts have been on the forefront of insuring that homeowners’ rights are not trampled – that the banks act in excellent faith and when they don’t – holding them liable for it.  The banks and their attorneys step very carefully into our courts these days for dread of the ultimate punishment – dismissal of their action with prejudice.

I reckon 2011 is the year we take back our country from Wall Street and the banks. The tide is turning.

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock
3. NY Governor Looking to Expand Protections for Defaulting HomeOwners, Tenants

In the highly publicized choice, Judge Spinner had not only vacated the Judgment of Foreclosure, but ordered that the mortgage and note be cancelled in their entirety. Spinner blisteringly castigated the plaintiff and characterized its course of conduct as “wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of excellent faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf. Indeed, plaintiff’s actions toward defendant in this matter have been harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive to the extent that it must be appropriately sanctioned”.

The Appellate Division held that the such a severe sanction was “not authorized by statute or rule” and the bank was not given “honest warning that such a sanction was even under consideration”.  Further, the court held that the trial court’s equity powers did not include the “authority to cancel the note and mortgage since there was no acceptable basis for relieving the homeowner of her contractual obligations to the bank” noting that a judgement had already been entered in the bank’s favor.  The court’s opinion can be found here.

Judge Spinner has gotten the attention of the banks in a huge way – his three recent decisions, Indymac Bank v. Yano-Horoski (cancelling note and mortgage), Wells Fargo v. Tyson (awarded $155,000 in hurts to the homeowner) and Emigrant Mortgage v. Corcione (awarded $100,000 in hurts to the homeowner) has made him the hero of the foreclosure defense community and a fearsome figure to the foreclosure plaintiffs.  Spinner just issued another crushing choice on December 1st in U.S. Bank v. Mathon 2010 NY Slip Op 52082(U) granting Defendant’s Order to Show Cause, staying all proceedings and scheduling a hearing for possible sanctions against the Plaintiff and other possible remedial relief based on the bank’s appalling terrible faith dealings on a loan modification.  The Banks’ attorneys no longer entrust their cases to junior associate,s when appearing in his courtroom at mandatory settlement conferences, because apparently, the risks are too fantastic.

Am I shocked at the Appellate Division’s reversal? Not at all – I really predicted this would be the outcome.  As you get higher up the food chain, it gets to be more about policy than law sometimes.  The Yano-Horoski trial court choice would have set a perilous precedent and sent shock waves through the mortgage credit industry.  A mortgage is a debt security and should a judge just cancel such a debt based upon broad powers of equity, what bank would lend on a home in such a climate?  And if the bank were willing to risk it, at what cost to the consumer?  The banks would need to insulate themselves against the risk of mortgage cancellation and the way they do that is by increasing the profit margin dramatically.  Also, lets look to the every day people who are paying their mortgage every day, even if their house is underwater – what would be their reaction if all of sudden, homeowners left and right were given free houses? The outrage would start to build (if it hasn’t already) – and they would start to wonder why should they pay their mortgages?

I believe that the parties will quietly come to a settlement, probably sealed of course, and the Horoskis will receive a nicely, modified loan with a stout principal reduction and the bank has a stellar precedent on the appellate record.

Related posts:

1. Mortgage Assignments are Not the Real Estate Investor’s Dream!
2. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock
3. NY Governor Looking to Expand Protections for Defaulting HomeOwners, Tenants

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

Bloomberg reported that,

GMAC Mortgage may “need to take corrective action in connection with some foreclosures” in the affected states, according to a two-page memo dated Sept. 17 marked “urgent.”….Brokers were told to immediately stop evictions, cash- for-key transactions and lockouts, according to the document, addressed to GMAC preferred agents. GMAC is also suspending sales on properties which it has already foreclosed on and extending closing dates in those transactions already in contract. The following  is a list of the affected states, which are judicial foreclosure states:

Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Vermont
Wisconsin

Now of course, GMAC is attempting to downplay the seriousness of this matter and calling it a mere “technical” defect.   But, foreclosure defense attorneys and agencies have advised that the questionable affidavits are only the “tip of the iceberg” and represent the beginning of the end for the foreclosure mills and for the banks and servicers who have been seeking to exercise foreclosure under fake pretenses.  What foreclosure attorneys have been saying is finally coming to light:  the nation’s foreclosure system is riddled with faked documents, forged signatures and lenders cutting corners when reviewing borrower’s files.

Not only are the Lenders, Servicers and Foreclosure Attorneys overwhemed but apparently the courts are too.  The Washington Post reported yesterday that,

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. NY Governor Looking to Expand Protections for Defaulting HomeOwners, Tenants

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

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!

Evidently the government is serious about getting these delinquent mortgages modified – here is another positive change to HAMP:

Press Release from HUD:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary
Shaun Donovan today announced the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
has implemented changes to its loan modification program to ensure
consistency with the Obama Administration's Home Affordable Modification Program. By August 15th,
FHA borrowers will be able to significantly reduce their monthly
mortgage payments by seeking a loan modification through their current
mortgage company or loan servicer under the new FHA-Home Affordable
Modification Program (FHA-HAMP).

"Today, we're bringing another vital tool to the table to help
struggling families who are desperate to keep their homes," said
Donovan. "Tens of thousands of FHA borrowers will now be able to modify
their mortgages in the same manner as so many others who are taking
advantage of the Administration''s Making Home Affordable program. This
is just the latest tool we are providing to help homeowners prevent
foreclosures through the Making Home Affordable program. Earlier this
month we announced an expansion of the Home Affordable Refinance
Program to borrowers who are up to 125 percent underwater. Together,
these actions will significantly increase the help available to
homeowners.

"The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, signed into law on
May 20, allows FHA to give qualified FHA-insured borrowers the
opportunity to reduce their monthly mortgage payment by modifying the
mortgage through FHA-HAMP. FHA released the program's implementation
guidelines today. FHA expects all servicers to implement the changes by
August 15. The program permanently reduces a family's monthly mortgage
payment through the use of a partial claim, which defers the repayment
of mortgage principal through an interest-free subordinate mortgage
that is not due until the first mortgage is paid off.

FHA has used the partial claim option in the past, which allows a
lender to advance funds on behalf of a borrower, to reinstate a
delinquent loan that was up to 12 months delinquent. Now, this program
will allow HUD to bring the borrower's payment down to an affordable
level. This will be accomplished by bringing the mortgage current,
buying down the loan by up to 30 percent of the unpaid principal
balance and deferring these amounts in a partial claim.

FHA will pay an incentive to loan servicers for each FHA loan modified
under this program. A Mortgagee Letter, along with detailed
requirements for the FHA-Home Affordable Modification Program, was
distributed to all FHA lenders today. The implementation of this
program will further the Obama Administration's efforts to stabilize
the housing market by helping homeowners to stay current on their
mortgages and stay in their homes, therefore preventing the destructive
impact of foreclosures on families and communities.

Making Home Affordable, a comprehensive plot to stabilize the U.S.
housing market, was first announced by the Obama Administration on
February 18. More than 200,000 trial loan modifications are already
underway, tens of thousands of refinancings have closed, and
informational mailings about the program have been sent to more than
one million borrowers who may be eligible.

FHA borrowers who are experiencing difficulty making their mortgage
payments should contact their loan servicer or HUD's National Servicing
Center at (888) 297-8685 to determine if they qualify for the FHA-Home
Affordable Modification Program. The Mortgagee Letter, with detailed
information about the program, is available on the HUD website. Non-FHA
borrowers can find information about the Obama Administration's Making
Home Affordable program at www.makinghomeaffordable.gov.

HUD News Release 09-137

Related posts:

1. Treasury Department’s “Making Home Affordable” Program Attempts to Tackle 2nd Lien Dilemna
2. DON’T SAY I DIDN’T WARN YOU! NY Attorney General’s Crackdown on the Loan Modification Industry
3. Short Sales & No-Flip Clauses in the Approval Letter – Removing a Roadblock