Blackacre 2.0distressed | Blackacre 2.0

MARS Attacks! Newest Loan Modification Legislation and What You Need to Know NOW!

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:43:22 +0000

Throwing its hat into the arena in the crusade to protect distressed home owners, the FTC imposed new regulations on mortgage relief companies effective December 29, 2010, except for their advance fee ban which goes into effect January 31, 2011. Although many states, including New York, have imposed their own statutory regulations, the FTC sought to address consumer abuses in those States that had not enacted protective legislation. The FTC issued the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 322: Mortgage Assistance Relief Services; Final Rule and Statement of Basis and Purpose, FTC File No. R911003) to prevent bogus operations falsely claiming, for a fee, that they will negotiate with the consumer’s mortgage lender or servicer to obtain a loan modification, a short sale, or other relief from foreclosure. Several of these types of companies pretended to be affiliated with the government and government housing assistance programs.

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:

Stopping or postponing a foreclosure sale;
Negotiating or arranging a Modification of a Dwelling Loan;
Obtaining a forbearance in the timing of payments due on a Dwelling Loan;
Negotiating or arranging any extension of the time period for curing a default or reinstating the Dwelling Loan;
Obtaining a waiver of an acceleration clause or balloon payment in a Dwelling Loan;
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;
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;
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
Marketing of refinancing options by Mortgage Brokers if offered to avoid a foreclosure.

Does MARS Apply to Attorneys?

Attorneys are fully exempt if they:

Provide mortgage assistance relief as part of the practice of law;
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;
Comply with state laws and regulations that cover the same type of conduct the rule requires;
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
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.

A New Year: Looking Back and Looking Forward at Fraudclosure

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:48:33 +0000

2011 was ushered in with the usual fanfare in my family – lots of tasty appetizers, hanging out with the kids until the stroke of midnight and off to bed. I spent the end of 2010 trying to push a few small sales, despite overwhelming resistance by ignorant negotiators and researching a new gun to hold to the bank’s head – the faulty securitization of the mortgages and the resulting lack of standing of these various Plaintiff trustees to bring foreclosure actions.

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.

Suffolk County Crushes Deutsche Bank Over Fraudulent Foreclosure Docs

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:06:28 +0000

The judges in Suffolk County (along with their Brooklyn counterparts) have been proactive in the fight against fraudulent foreclosure actions from the beginning. They have refused to rubber stamp the banks’ foreclosure filings and have consistently required them to adhere to the law. In Deutsche Bank, as Trustee v. McCoy, the judge denied the bank’s Motion for an Order of Reference based upon lack of standing to even bring the foreclosure action. Apparently, the bank attempted to retroactively file an Assignment to make standing. The Assignment was dated February 28, 2008 but declared an effective date of “January 19, 2008″. The court noted,

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.

The Party is Over: GMAC Halts Foreclosures Amid Pervasive Foreclosure Fraud

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:09:20 +0000

This past week GMAC issued directives to its servicers and agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states including Florida, Connecticut and New York. Apparently, one officer of GMAC Mortgage’s servicing unit has admitted during testimony given in a deposition that, while he signs thousands of affidavits each month (to the tune of 6,000 to 8,000) as part of the necessary documents that must be filed with the foreclosure action, he lacks personal knowledge of certain critical facts in the affidavit which he asserts to be right. The affiant must be directly involved with the facts he is asserting and this error is certainly not limited to this officer, as evidenced by this defective affidavit and its subsequent withdrawal or, for that matter: GMAC.

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,

In theory, a judge should review the files one more time. But after the crisis produced massive numbers of delinquent homeowners, judges in many cases became overwhelmed. Some simply took at face value the documents handed over to them by the lenders – who in many cases were not checking the files, either, according to interviews with judges, attorneys and consumer groups.

This go by GMAC makes an opening for borrowers to contest some of the more than 2 million foreclosures that have taken place since the bubble burst. Every New York foreclosure defense attorney should be closely examining the foreclosure pleadings in current proceedings, as well as those that have already been foreclosed upon, for reliance upon faulty affidavits, which are tantamount to fraud and deposing all affiants. More than one case has been dismissed, with prejudice, because of fraud upon the court. Neil Garfield of Living Lies provides an brilliant analysis of a defective affidavit that was really submitted in support of an action to foreclose real property:

In general the affidavit is insufficient because it does not satisfy the basic requirements of personal knowledge.

1. “Affiant is an employee”: Affiant should be an officer or otherwise identified as having a specific scope of employment that should be identified and described for the period starting with the loan closing up through the date of the affidavit.

2. “Of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s servicing agent”: Now they are withholding what entity employs the affiant so there is no presumption that the affiant in fact has personal knowledge of anything, or if affiant has personal knowledge of everything involved in the loan transaction and payments. Nor are they identifying or describing the function of either plaintiff or the servicing agent.

3. “Personally familiar”: Doesn’t mean personal knowledge. He probably got information from others (hearsay), and he does not identify himself as custodian of records for anyone on anything.

4. “The information is found in the servicing agent’s records”: So he might not employed by the servicing agent but he is swearing that the information is contained in their records. Hearsay, and lack of competence to testify because he is allowing that he might NOT have personal knowledge, which is the key component of a witness’ competency to testify — the four elements being oath or affirmation, personal knowledge, recall and the ability to communicate information that is relevant to the case from his personal knowledge and recollection. In addition there is no indication when the servicing agent started to service, who the servicing agent is, and whether they are still the servicing agent. And there is no indication of what information is tracked by the servicing agent — for example, does the servicing agent pay the holder in due course? who is the holder in due course? Since this loan was most likely securitized, what insurance, third party guarantees, reserves, cross collateralization and/or over collateralization payments have been made? Has the obligation been satisfied or assumed and assigned to a government sponsored entity, or in a bailout by the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve. Chances are the servicer can only say whether the maker of the note paid the servicer. The servicer cannot say and doesn’t know about third party payments on the note. He also cannot say whether payments were received by the payee or holder of the note by the borrower nor does he state the authority of the servicer to intermediate the payments.

5. “The entries are made”: How does he know that the entries are made and if so, by whom, under what authority and based upon what information. We already know he might be an employee of the Plaintiff and not the servicer. So he lacks competency to state anything about the business process or record keeping of the servicer.

6. “either people with first hand knowledge or…”: if they didn’t have first hand knowledge then somehow they got information from people who had first hand knowledge. Really? who? And how would he know about any of it?

7. “recording such entries is a regular practice of servicer or plaintiff”: Well, which is it? Which one is he saying has what information? He clearly is only saying that the records of only one company are involved, but he won’t say which one. What about the other one. Were payments made by borrower to one or the other or both? This second admission that there are two entities involved means at the very least that two affidavits are required — one from the servicer and one from the payee on the note. If the note has been assigned, then a third, fourth fifth etc affidavit needs to be executed by all those who have or ever had a claim to the revenue from the note.

8. “There is now due”: Lack of foundation for all the above reasons. Affidavit is subject to Motion to strike.

9. The numbers stated as charges to the account are unsubstantiated by copies of invoices or any other corroboration.

What does this mean for distressed homeowners? This will have to play out in the courts as only time will tell. You can be sure that all the servicers and lenders have already changed their procedures to rectify this glaring error although it couldn’t hurt to pursue this line of defense. Certainly the sheer volume of foreclosure filings is going to make it extremely hard for the Plaintiff to have affidavits executed by a capable party that will pass muster. Also, if a defective affidavit is grounds for dismissal, the question remains – with or without prejudice? That will depend upon the judges as they have broad powers of relief under the laws of equity which governs civil fraud. Judges have already dismissed foreclosure complaints, with prejudice, for fraud. We will have to wait and see what happens on the appellate level.

Something for Everyone on the S&P Networking Site

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:35:37 +0000

Its summer I've been out having fun with my family at the pool, beach, BBQs etc. and unfortunately, my blog posts have become few and far between. But, I wanted to alert everyone to some new posts over at our S&P Networking site:

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!

Foreclosure Proceedings and the Right of Redemption in NY

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:42:54 +0000

New York is a judicial foreclosure state and the process can take over a year to proceed from Summons & Complaint through judgment and then auction. A homeowner has a right to redeem up and until auction, but unlike many states, there is no right of redemption after Sale (but see Bill proposing to allow right of redemption for up to 1 year post Sale.).

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.

REO Fraud: A Study In How NOT to Flip an REO

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:31:08 +0000

So I have been playing around with a new feature added to Property Shark: Deep Owner Search. You can type in a person’s name, a corporation name or an address and see what properties are associated with that information. From there, you can also search that person’s associates and so forth. Since I have practiced real estate law for the past 15 years, I have a lot of names at my disposal so I search to see what everyone has been up to.

One of my searches led me to a couple of REO property flips involving a corporation represented by the same attorney. All the properties are located in Brooklyn. One of the transactions, the spread was over $320,000! Nice profit, isn’t it? So how did they do it? Buyer took out a conventional mortgage of $635,000 and closed the beginning of November 2008. Most, if not all, conventional lenders have seasoning requirements. Did this corporation buy the property and hold for 90 days? Nope. Now I am sure you are wondering – well how does she know? I know, because all of these transactions are part of the public record and, if you know what to look for, it is honestly simple to discern the methodology. These particular parties are stupid. But, they also had to be aided by the title company. So what did they do?

Take a look at this snapshot of one of the transfer tax documents – the RP5217 – that I copied straight from the ACRIS system:

Now look at the crossed-out dates (this one is such a particularly poor job, but it closed). I propose that it did, in fact, close on September 10, 2008. Look at the CRN number on the bottom of the form (circled in red). The CRN number starts with the year, month and day the property is supposed to change hands and is inputted by the drafter. These transfer tax returns are usually prepared within days of closing. This vast time difference would never occur. The parties needed to back date the transaction because of the bank’s seasoning requirements. Also, they needed to back date it far enough that they could avoid any additional value requirements for transactions taking place within 180 days of acquisition.

Suffice it to say this is only one of this buyer’s reo transactions and they rest follow the same trend. It is all laid out there in the public record. This kind of trend would certainly supply law enforcement with enough probable cause to obtain a warrant to secure the documents from both the first and the second closings. Perhaps there will be a show check, fake income documents and other indicia of fraud – who knows?

Now question yourself, if I can find this blatant evidence of REO fraud, who else could be looking?

Don’t Believe the Hype: FHA’s Temporary Waiver of 90 Seasoning Rule

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:05:18 +0000

On Friday, January 15, 2010, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan issued a press release, as part of HUD’s Neighborhood Stabilization initiative, temporarily waiving FHA’s 90 Day Seasoning Rule. Amazingly, HUD is cognizant that the seasoning guideline is having a negative impact on alleviating the problem of abandoned and blighted homes:

“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.

Pt I: Are You A Distressed Property Consultant? Don’t Run Afoul of NY’s “Foreclosure Prevention and Responsible Lending Act of 2008″

Kathleen Scanlon — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:02:55 +0000

I had an instant messenger conversation last night with a excellent mortgage broker friend of mine who was very upset. Her client’s home was due to be auctioned shortly, even though there was a loan modification in progress. The consultants, retained by the homeowner to help in filing an Order to Show Cause to stop the sale, refused to supply any documents without a $500 weekly payment (they had already collected a decent sum up front). After a heated discussion with the consultants, my friend threatened to file a complaint with the authorities to which the consultant promptly answered that he had a lawyer, he didn’t do anything incorrect and he wasn’t concerned. I realized at this moment that this gentleman had no thought that he was violating the law but he most certainly was and there are serious consequences involved. New York enacted the “Foreclosure Prevention and Responsible Lending Act of 2008 effective September 1, 2008 but utterly failed to properly educate members of the real estate industry in its application and proper compliance. To obtain the pertinent provisions of the law, I did a quick google search but failed to turn up the actual statutes themselves (This Act amended NY’s Banking Law, Real Property Law (RPL) and Real Property and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). I was only able to find interpretations of the Act which did not fully provide the definitions and rules pertaining to Real Property Consultants. As a member of the New York State Bar Association, Real Property Section, I am subscribed to their email listserve. Anyone who knows me can attest to my practice of keeping every email so I was able to do a quick search and find the text of the law. In this post, I will provide the tools to help you in understanding and complying with the law so that you don’t end up with a visit from the NY Attorney General’s office.
Those who have really heard of the Act reckon it only applies to loan modification companies. The statute is far broader in its definition of Distressed Property Consultants and the services they provide. The Act amended NY’s Real Property Law by adding Section 265-b which defines certain terms including “distressed homeowners”, “distressed property consultants”, and “distressed home loans” among others.

Distressed Home Owners

The Act defines in Sec 265-b(1)(a) the “Distressed Home Owner” as a natural person who is the mortgagor with respect to a distressed home loan or who is in danger of losing a home for nonpayment of taxes. Therefore, if your client is a corporation, LLC, Trust etc., they are not natural persons and therefore not Distressed Home Owners under this Act. In conjunction with this definition, it is imperative to view same in light of the definition of “distressed home loan” in subsection (d) which defines it as a home loan that is in danger of being foreclosed because the homeowner has one or more defaults under the mortgage that entitle the lender to accelerate full payment of the mortgage and repossess the property, or a home loan where the lender has
commenced a foreclosure action. To be a Distressed Home Owner, your client must be in default under the terms of their Note and Mortgage which entitles the Lender to accelerate the loan. You must examine the Mortgage, discern the acts that constitute a default as well as under what circumstances allow the Lender to accelerate the loan. Further, the act defines a “home loan” as a loan in which the debt is incurred by the homeowner primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and the loan is secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on property upon which there is located or there is to be located a structure or structures intended principally for occupancy of from one to four families which is or will be occupied by the homeowner as the homeowner’s principal dwelling. The loan must be secured by your client’s principal residence and have been originated as a residential loan to be covered by this Act.

Distressed Property Consultants & Consulting Services

Section 265-b(1)(c) Defines the nature of the consulting services covered by the statute. Such definition is very broad and encompasses far more than loan modification:

(c) “Consulting services” means services provided by a distressed property consultant to a homeowner that the consultant represents will help to achieve any of the following:

(i) stop, enjoin, delay, void, set aside, annul, stay or postpone foreclosure filing, a foreclosure sale or the loss of a home for nonpayment of taxes;

(ii) obtain forbearance from any servicer, beneficiary or mortgagee or relief with respect to the potential loss of the home for nonpayment of taxes;

(iii) help the homeowner to exercise a right of reinstatement or similar right provided in the mortgage documents or any law or to refinance a distressed home loan;

(iv) obtain any extension of the period within which the homeowner may reinstate or otherwise restore his or her rights with respect to the property;

(v) obtain a waiver of an acceleration clause contained in any promissory note or contract secured by a mortgage on a property in foreclosure;
(vi) help the homeowner to obtain a loan or advance of funds;

(vii) help the homeowner in answering or responding to a summons and complaint, or otherwise providing information regarding the foreclosure complaint and process;

(viii) avoid or ameliorate the impairment of the homeowner’s credit resulting from the commencement of a foreclosure proceeding or tax sale;
or

(ix) save the homeowner’s property from foreclosure or loss for non-payment of taxes.

Therefore, if you perform loan modifications and/or workouts, small sales, credit repair your services are covered. If you help a distressed home owner with obtaining financing, including refinancing or any type of loan or advance, your services are covered (Note exception below for licensed mortgage bankers & brokers). If you provide “consulting” services wherein you help a distressed home owner in defending a foreclosure defense action, your serviced are covered. Or, if you do anything whatsoever that will result in “saving” the home owner’s property from foreclosure or loss from non-payment of taxes, your services are covered. Paragraph (ix) is extremely broad and ambiguous – what constitutes “saving”? That will require clarification by the courts in the future.

What is a Distressed Property Consultant?
While you may have determined that your client is a distressed homeowner who has a distressed home loan and your services are covered by the Act, but the question remains – are you a Distressed Property Consultant?

The Act defines “Distressed Property Consultants” as an individual or a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity that, directly or indirectly, solicits or undertakes employment to provide consulting services to a homeowner
for compensation or promise of compensation with respect to a
distressed home loan or a potential loss of the home for nonpayment of taxes.

Note: A consultant does not include the following:

(i) an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York;

(ii) a person or entity who holds or is owed an obligation secured by a lien on any property in foreclosure while the person or entity performs services in connection with the obligation or lien;

(iii) a bank, trust company, private banker, bank holding company,savings bank, savings and loan association, thrift holding company, credit union or insurance company organized under the laws of this state, another state or the United States, or a
subsidiary or affiliate of such entity or a foreign banking corporation licensed
by the superintendent of banks or the comptroller of the currency;

(iv) a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development approved mortgagee and any subsidiary or affiliate of such mortgagee, and any agent or employee of these persons while engaged in the business of such mortgagee;

(v) a judgment creditor of the homeowner, if the judgment creditor’s claim accrued before the written notice of foreclosure sale is sent;

(vi) a title insurer authorized to do business in this state, while performing title insurance and settlement services;

(vii) a person licensed as a mortgage banker or registered as a mortgage broker or registered as a mortgage loan servicer as defined in article twelve-D of the banking law;

(viii) a bona fide not-for-profit organization that offers counseling or advice to homeowners in foreclosure or loan default;
or

(ix) a person licensed or registered in the state to engage in the practice of other professions that the superintendent of banks has determined should not be subject to this section.
Therefore, a Distressed Property Consultant does not necessarily have to be a natural person. Further, if you are an attorney, a Lender, Servicer, Mortgage Banker, Mortgage Broker, Judgment Creditor, Title Insurer, or a Non-Profit you are exempt.

In my next post, I’ll discuss Distressed Property Consultant compliance, proscribed activities and more. Stay tuned!

Mortgage holders are marks: Loan modification specialists take money, do little in return

Kathleen Scanlon — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:26:14 +0000

I have been advising everyone in the real estate industry, that New York’s Foreclosure Prevention and Lender Responsibility Act went into effect September 1, 2008 and includes, among other items, strict requirements for those who seek to perform loss mitigation on behalf of distressed home owners. These requirements include written, notarized contracts with a right to cancel and a prohibition against collecting fees upfront except for attorneys and non-profits. It seems to me that these loan modification companies are ignoring the law at their peril.
- Kathleen A. Scanlon, Esq.

Daniel Massey November 30, 2008
Shelly Ann Bell was only a month behind on her mortgage in August, but with the interest rate scheduled to adjust upward and $4,000-a-month payments staring her in the face, she knew it would soon be impossible to keep up.
So when the 28-year-ancient nurse manager got a call from a man promising to help modify the mortgage on her single-family home in Springfield Gardens, Queens, it sounded like a way out of her troubles. She says she paid $2,150 to the Loan Modification Group, a Florida-based company, and was told to stop making monthly mortgage payments. She’s now five months behind, and in danger of losing the home she bought in 2007 so her 3-year-ancient son could grow up with a backyard.“I haven’t gotten a loan modification,” she says. “I haven’t gotten anything from them.” The company could not be reached for comment.
With citywide foreclosures up 50% over a year ago, some of the same bankers and brokers who sold unaffordable, subprime loan officers are now joining the rapidly growing ranks of mortgage modification consultants. While some members of what an online ad called one of the “fastest-growing job markets in the country” run legitimate businesses, housing advocates say many are taking people’s money and doing small or nothing in return.
The burgeoning industry has caught the attention of the FBI’s New York office and the state attorney general. At best, loan modification companies provide homeowners with a service they could get for free from their lenders or nonprofit housing counselors, says the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Frequently, they question homeowners for thousands of dollars up front, which is illegal in 12 states, including New York, unless the fee is made to a lawyer or nonprofit. As part of the sales pitch, homeowners are often advised to stop making mortgage payments, putting their homes in further jeopardy of foreclosure.Often, the companies do small to facilitate an affordable mortgage modification, advocates say.
Firms bombard homeowners with mailings and phone calls; they scour public records for homeowners whose properties are in danger of being foreclosed, and they advertise on Craigslist.
“You see one here and there, and then all of a sudden you realize it’s an epidemic,” says Jessica Attie, co-director of South Brooklyn Legal Services’ Foreclosure Prevention Project. “They sound very appealing. It’s hard for people to know many are not legitimate companies.”Attorney Adam Cohen of MFY Legal Services’ Foreclosure Prevention Project, says one of his clients paid nearly $5,500 to American Modification Agency, a Long Island company that also operates as Amerimod Modification Agency. He was drawn by a flier stating that AMA was the “only company that is registered, licensed, insured and bonded to modify mortgages in the United States that has a 100% success rate and money-back guarantee.”That cloak of professionalism is misleading, as there is no way to be licensed as a mortgage modification consultant, Mr. Cohen says. And AMA not only failed to produce an affordable modification for his client, but it also caused the client to fall $30,000 behind on his mortgage by telling him not to make his payments, Mr. Cohen says.
John Schaefer, an attorney for AMA, says the client was already substantially behind in his payments and that the company was able to facilitate a modification within 22 days, which the client reneged on. As for the claims in the flier, an AMA spokesman says the agency had “no record of authorizing or authenticating” the leaflet.
The company, which claims to have 400 agents, has raised concern among officials in New Jersey, where the Mercer County clerk recently issued a consumer alert that AMA purported in phone solicitations to be working with the clerk’s office.Law enforcement agencies are zeroing in. The Illinois attorney general last month filed seven lawsuits against modification firms that failed to negotiate workouts for clients. And the Colorado attorney general has filed 15 stop-and-desist orders against such companies.In New York, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office is reviewing complaints, a spokeswoman says. The FBI’s New York office is also investigating.“We are aware of it and are working diligently to address the issue,” says Supervisory Special Agent Rachel Rojas. “This is a new scheme, and we assume it’s going to get worse.”

Free | Crain’s New York Business

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: loanmodification, subprime mortgage, American Modification Agency, foreclosure, New York law,